Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Gas Light and Coke Company Bill,

Wolverhampton Corporation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 26th July, and agreed to.

SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Ordered, That, in the case of the Southend - on - Sea Corporation Bill [Lords], Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

King's Consent signified; Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Return ordered, showing the number of Persons in receipt of Poor Law Relief in England and Wales on the night of the 1st day of January, 1926 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 164, of Session 1924–25).—[Mr. N. Chamberlain.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

FACTORY INSPECTION, BOMBAY.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of factory women workers in the Bombay Presidency; whether there are any women factory inspectors; if so, how many; and when these were appointed?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The num-
ber of women workers in factories was 72,679 in 1924. One lady inspector was appointed in that year.

Mr. YOUNG: Has the Noble Lord any influence, and, if so, will he use it to get more women factory inspectors appointed?

Earl WINTERTON: I am afraid the answer is that this is entirely a matter for the Local Government. No doubt they will take into consideration the relevant facts of the case.

Colonel DAY: In view of the large number of people employed there, and there is only one factory inspector, will the Noble Lord make representations?

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard the answer which I gave. I said that this was a matter for the Bomb0ay Government.

MATCH FACTORIES (EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN).

Mr. R. YOUNG: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, seeing that no young children under the age laid down by the Factories Act are employed in match factories in Bombay where such employment was prohibited by notification from the Government authorities in Bombay, a similar notification has been issued in regard to match factories in other provinces; and, if so, in how many provinces this notification has been issued?

Earl WINTERTON: All the provisions of the Act apply (a) to all factories where power is used and at least 20 persons are employed, and also (b) to other places (where at least 10 persons are employed) declared to be factories by the Local Government. The Bombay Government's declaration relates to places where splints are converted into matches, and at least 20 persons are employed. The Government of Burma has taken similar action in regard to match factories employing at least. 10 persons. So far as the available information shows, no declaration affecting match factories has been made by other Local Governments.

CIVIL SERVICE PROMOTION.

Mr. AMMON: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what propor-
tion of the percentage of appointments of the 20 per cent. sanctioned for promotion to the Indian Civil Service has been attained and the percentage appointments of the sanctioned 30 per cent. by direct recruitment from the several provinces in each case?

Earl WINTERTON: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. As I informed the hon. Member on let April, it will necessarily take time to work up to the full 20 per cent. of superior posts, but a start has been made. I do not understand the reference in the second part of the question. Direct recruitment to the Indian Civil Service of Europeans and Indians is, however, proceeding on the half and half basis recommended by the Lee Commission.

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE (COIMBATORE).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what is the number of students that can be accommodated at the Government agricultural college at Coimbatore; and whether, in view of the importance of agricultural training to the prosperity of the country and the fact that out of 170 applicants during the current year 130 were refused on the ground of insufficient accommodation, the Government of India propose to increase the accommodation at this college?

Earl WINTERTON: The matter is one for the Government of Madras. My Noble Friend does not know what number of students can be accommodated at the College, but understands that new buildings have recently been, or are being, constructed.

DIVORCE LAW.

Mr. RAMSDEN (for Mr. H. WILLIAMS): 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if it is the intention of the Government of India to pass legislation similar to the Indian and Colonial Divorce Bill, so that women in Great Britain whose husbands are domiciled in India may have rights similar to those which will be conferred by the Bill on women in India whose husbands are domiciled in Great Britain?

Earl WINTERTON: Legislation with this object would not be within the com-
petence of the Indian Legislature, but would have to be passed by Parliament. There is no intention of extending the scope of the Bill now before this House in the manner indicated.

HINDUS AND MOSLEMS (GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES).

Mr. ALBERY (for Mr. PILCHER): 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of Hindus and Moslems, respectively, employed by the Indian Government and by the more important Provincial Governments in their respective secretariats and in their police departments?

Earl WINTERTON: I regret that the information is not available, and that it would hardly be possible to collect it without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour. Moreover, since the proportion of Moslems and Hindus varies in each Province, a return of this nature would not afford a basis for estimating the proportionate representation of the two communities in these services.

INTER-RELIGIOUS STRIFE (FATALITIES).

Mr. ALBERY (for Mr. PILCHER): 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of fatalities attributable in India to inter-religious strife in the decade or decades preceding the war and in the period which has succeeded the war?

Earl WINTERTON: I am afraid that a statistical return of this kind would be very difficult to compile, and would involve a disproportionate amount of research in every province in India.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

Mr. SNELL: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Governor of Kenya Colony- has stated that he is anxious to secure throughout the settled part of the Colony the appointment of unofficial resident magistrates from amongst the settlers; and whether, considering the difficulties involved in such a departure from the established administrative practice of the country, he will give the matter his consideration before any change is made?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for COLONIAL AFFAIRS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): My right hon. Friend has not received any proposals on this matter from the Governor. The hon. Member may rest assured that all relevant factors will be carefully considered if and when such proposals are submitted to him.

LABOUR SUPPLY.

Mr. GILLETT: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the terms of reference of the Labour Committee, recently set up in Kenya Colony under the chairmanship of the Chief Native Commissioner, contain any instruction to them to consider any measures that may be practicable to facilitate the flow of labour from the reserves?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: According to a local newspaper, the terms of reference contain, among other matters, an instruction in the sense indicated in the question.

COLONIAL ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. G. HALL: 26.
asked the Secretary for Mines the amount of subvention paid qualified administrators have been sent to study how analogous problems are dealt with by countries such as the United States of America, France, and Holland, who also have tropical possessions?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: While visits of courtesy and informal meetings are exchanged on suitable occasions between officers administering the Governments of British dependencies and corresponding foreign Colonial officers, 'my right hon. Friend doubts whether it would be practicable to arrange anything of a more formal character. Every effort is made to follow the developments in methods of administration of Colonies by foreign Powers, in particular in regard to agricultural research and kindred matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

FOREIGN CONTRACTS LOST.

Major AINSW0RTH: 19.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department he has any figures showing how many foreign contracts for
British coal, and the tonnage, have been lost to this country through the coal stoppage?

The SECRETARY to the OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT (Mr. A. M. Samuel): I have no figures available that would give my hon. Friend a full or reliable reply, but I have no doubt whatever from the fragmentary information at my disposal, that we have lost many foreign orders for coal owing to the present
dispute.

MINERS WORKING.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 25
asked the Secretary for Mines what is the nearest convenient date on which he can give the figures of the number of wage-earners at work in the coal mines, exclusive of safety men; and what was the number?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The latest date for which figures are available is the 24th July. On that date there were 93,370 wageearners employed, of whom 66,300 were employed at mines not producing any coal, or producing coal for colliery consumption only.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the figures of the men other than the safety men engaged in raising coal actually?

Colonel LANE FOX: I think the hon. and gallant Member will have to give me notice of that question.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: Has the number of safety men employed been reduced during the progress of the coal dispute, and, if any reduction has taken place, on what ground?

Colonel LANE FOX: I am not aware of any considerable reduction, or any reduction, but again I must ask for notice.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the question I put to the right hon. Gentleman I wanted to get the number of men at work in the coal mines, exclusive of safety men.

Colonel LANE FOX: The answer I have given is that 66,300 wage-earners were employed on the 24th July at mines not producing any coal, or producing coal for colliery consumption only.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that the mine is not producing coal, or that the men employed are not producing coal?

Colonel LANE FOX: Surely it is the same thing. If the men are not producing coal, the4 mine is not producing coal.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: As the right hon. Gentleman has given the answer, it might read that there are so many men employed in mines not winning coal. I want to know the number of men actually engaged in getting coal. There is an ambiguity in the answer.

Colonel LANE FOX: It is a matter of simple arithmetic. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see me afterwards, I will explain.

PEMBROKESHIRE.

Mr. G. HALL: 26.
asked the Secretary for Mines the amount of subvention paid to the coalowners of Pembrokeshire during the subvention period?

Colonel LANE FOX: The amount of subvention payable to owners in Pembrokeshire is not yet definitely ascertained, but it is estimated to be about £8,600.

Mr. G. HALL: 27 and 28.
asked the Secretary for Mines (1) the average wage per man shift worked paid to the coal miners of Pembrokeshire for the 12 months ended 30th April last;
(2) the average profit per ton received by the coalowners of Pembrokeshire for the five years ended 31st December last, giving each separately?

Colonel LANE FOX: Separate particulars for Pembrokeshire are not available. The only figures available relate to South Wales and Monmouth as a whole.

OUTCROP WORKING.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON (for Mr. WRAGG): 29.
asked the Secretary for Mines if his attention has been called to the number of accidents occurring in outcrop mining by shafts, and if the Regulations imposed by the Mines Regulation Acts are enforced?

Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, Sir. These workings are visited by the inspectors of mines, and everything possible is done to enforce the safety provisions of the Coal Mines Act.

Sir F. SANDERSON (for Mr. WRAGG): 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether the men employed on outcrop mining have their health insurance cards regularly stamped?

Sir K. WOOD: Insurance cards are required to be stamped for men so engaged if they are employed under a contract of service, but not otherwise. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any case which he may have in mind, I will have inquiries made.

MINERS' DEPENDANTS (RELIEF).

Mr. LOWTH: 37.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the reports by voluntary organisations from many mining areas of the distress prevailing there amongst babies, young children, pit boys under 16, and expectant mothers, occasioned chiefly by the system of relief on loan, he will sanction, for the remainder of the stoppage, the adoption by the relief authorities concerned of a more generous scale of relief?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has asked his inspectors to give special attention to the occurrence of cases of hardship, and the reports which he has received do not support the view that distress among the classes mentioned is prevalent in the mining areas.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: 22.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the decision in a recent case has made it clear that the certificate of the Ministry of Agriculture's local veterinary inspector is conclusive evidence in all Courts of Justice in any case of sheep scab or other disease of animals, the Government will, in fairness to farmers, introduce at an early date legislation to amend the provisions of Section 44, Sub-section (5), of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave
on the 29th July to my hon. Friend the Member for the Richmond Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Murrough Wilson), a copy of which I am sending to him.

WAGES COMMITTEES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 24.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many county wage committees have fixed wages at less than 35s. per week?

Mr. GUINNESS: Forty-one of the agricultural wages committees have fixed the minimum wage for ordinary adult male workers at less than 35s. per week, excluding overtime.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Have the National Wages Board or the Minister of Health caused inquiries to be made why so many counties are deciding upon wages at so small a figure?

The total area of land returned as being used for agricultural purposes in the undermentioned years in England and Wales, together with the total population in those years and the number of acres per 1,000 of population, was as follows:—


—
Acreage of Crops and Permanent grass.
Acreage of Crops, Permanent grass and rough grazing.
Total Population.
Acres per 1,000 of population.


Crops and Permanent grass.
Crops, Permanent grass and rough grazing.




Acres.
Acres.
No.
Acres.
Acres.


1870
…
25,957,035
*
22,501,000
1,154
—


1880
…
27,363,782
*
25,714,000
1,064
—


1890
…
27,872,335
*
28,764,000
969
—


1900
…
27,538,130
31,050,986
32,249,000
854
963


1914
…
27,114,004
30,895,569
36,967,000
733
836


1924
…
25,876,797
30,823,135
38,746,000
668
796


* Returns of the acreage of rough grazings were not collected before 1891.


No information is available as to the suitability of the land for agricultural use.

FRENCH CUSTOMS DUTIES.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade has any information showing that the French customs duties are to be raised?

Mr. SAMUEL: The French Committee of Experts, which has recently considered French finances, has recommended a substantial increase of the existing tariff. The terms of the recommendation appear on page 70 of the Board of Trade Journal for 18th July, a copy of which I will send to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. GUINNESS: We have no reason to think that the Wages Board are not carrying out their duties under the Act.

AGRICULTURAL LAND (ACREAGE).

Mr. RILEY: 23.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give figures showing the amount of land returned as agricultural land in England and Wales that was suitable for agricultural use in the years 1870, 1880, 1890, 1900, 1914, and 1924, together with the population of England and Wales for those years and the number of acres per 1,000 of the population?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statistical statement giving the information desired by the hon. Member.

Following is the statement:

Captain BENN: Was this matter mentioned at all when the negotiations for remitting part of the duties was being considered?

Mr. SAMUEL: That question should be put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

POST OFFICE (TRACING STAFF ACTING LIST).

Mr. AMMON: 32.
asked the Postmaster-General why it has been considered necessary to go so far down the
seniority list of the tracing staff employed in the Accountant-General's Department in order to find officers qualified for inclusion on the acting list'?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER -GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): A large number of supervising officers are due to retire under the age limit in the near future, and it is necessary that opportunity should be taken of testing the fitness for promotion of a certain number of officers of outstanding promise.

Mr. AMMON: Will the Noble Lord kindly reply to the question, why it has been considered necessary to go so far down the list before giving opportunities for the men to act?

Viscount WOLMER: In the circumstances, I have explained that it was necessary to bring some men, who were regarded as being of outstanding promise, up for trial somewhat earlier.

Mr. AMMON: Does that mean that all those with greater seniority have been passed over without any opportunity?

Viscount WOLMER: It does not mean that all have been finally passed over.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: May I ask whether it is to be understood that there is any party in this House in favour of promotion merely by seniority?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is the time for putting questions to Ministers—not to others.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT (OFFICERS'PENSIONS).

Mr. HAYES: 57.
asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that the Commissioners referred to in the Central Criminal Court Act, 1834, have not power to formulate a scheme for superannuation of the officers of the Central Criminal Court; whether it is within the knowledge of His Majesty's Government that the Commissioners caused certain proposed Amendments to the said Act to be drafted, copies of which were submitted to the Lord Chancellor and to the London County Council for consideration and reconsideration; and, in view of the fact that about four years have elapsed since the proposals were first drafted, will His Majesty's Government take such action as will enable the officers of the
said Court to participate in a scheme of superannuation at an early date?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I have been asked to reply. Proposals have from time to time been made for the establishment of a pension scheme for the officers of the Central Criminal Court. It would appear that, any such proposals would require the approval of Parliament, and it is desirable that before a Bill for this purpose is submitted the previous agreement of the parties concerned (that is, the Corporation of the City of London, the London County Council, and the other county councils contributing to the expense of the Central Criminal Court) should first be obtained. Efforts have been made to bring about such an agreement, but hitherto without success.

Mr. HAYES: May I ask the Attorney-General whether he cannot use his persuasive powers to induce the parties to come to an agreement, in view of the fact that the Central Criminal Court is the premier assize court in the country?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is a matter which does not rest with me but with my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. I understand that his Department has been doing its best to produce some agreement.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 34.
asked the Minister of Health if he will explain the position of an orphan under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, who on the death of its mother is adopted by its grandparents, close father remarries and subsequently dies, leaving the adopted child still with its grandparents, and the second wife, now widow with one or more children; would such a child living with its grandparents be treated as entitled to an orphan's pension or an additional allowance; and, if so, to whom should this pension or allowance be paid?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): In the circumstances indicated in the question, an additional allowance would be payable in respect of the child of the first marriage. Normally, an additional allowance is payable to the widow as part of her pen-
sion, but the Act contains provisions which authorise the transfer of the allowance from the widow to the person having the charge of the child.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are cases where grandparents have taken charge of the child almost from its birth, and the grandparents have not been able to receive the benefit of the referee's award? Will the hon. Gentleman look into the case if I submit one to him?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir.

LIQUOR SMUGGLING.

Mr. 'MACQUISTEN: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the conferences with General Andrews, of the United States of America, in respect to the suppression of smuggling and granting rights of search of British or alleged British ships or other means of freighting cargoes of drink, he will insist that reciprocal facilities will be given to this country and its dependencies?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the statement made on this subject in this House on the 27th July, and to the White Paper issued in May (Command 2647). 1 do not understand how the question of the grant of reciprocal facilities to this country and its dependencies arises.

Mr. MACGUISTEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman been informed of any case of an American citizen being poisoned by liquor smuggled by their own nationals or Britishers into America? Has his attention been called to the poisoning of over a score of British nationals in British territory by poisonous drink smuggled by Americans into British territory; and does he not think he might suggest to General Andrews that he should return to his own country and amend the disgraceful state of affairs there?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I deprecate the tone of my hon. and learned Friend's question. It really is not that which we should adopt towards another great
and friendly nation. I have no doubt that the American Government are as anxious to put a stop to improper trading on the Canadian frontier as are the Canadian Government.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Am I not entitled to be indignant at British citizens being poisoned?

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIA.

ANGLO-ITALIAN AGREEMENT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Note which has been sent by the Regent of Abyssinia to the Secretariat of the League of Nations, protesting against the recently-concluded Anglo-Italian Agreement relating to his country and stating that the Agreement was concluded without the knowledge of the Abyssinian Government and is opposed by that Government, will be laid before Parliament and whether he proposes to make any comment upon it?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The correspondence is at present incomplete, but I shall be glad to publish it when it is concluded.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to answer the last part of the question, as to when he is prepared to make some comment on the matter?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the matter is to be introduced into Debate this afternoon, and I shall then have the opportunity of making a fuller statement.

Captain BENN: Will the correspondence include the letter of the Regent of the 15th June, which I understand was sent?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the letter to the League?

Captain BENN: No, the letter to the British and Italian Governments of 15th June.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I should, of course, have to have the assent of the Abyssinian Government to its publication,, but subject to that there is no objection.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do I understand that all the papers will be laid, and that they will include the correspondence with the French Government, provided that Government do not object?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I do not say that all the correspondence that has passed will be found there, but there will be the Notes to the Abyssinian Government and the communications from the Abyssinian Government, the communications we received from the League and our communications to the League.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing the correspondence with the French Government?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think there is occasion to do that. I will see what correspondence there is, but I am sure there is nothing material.

Colonel DAY: Will the correspondence with the Italian Government be published?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am endeavouring to satisfy the curiosity of hon. Gentlemen, but it is unwise for me to attempt to answer detailed questions without notice. The British Government have nothing whatever to conceal in this matter, as I hope I shall make plain in the course of the discussion which an hon. and gallant Member opposite proposes to initiate.

Colonel DAY: Has there not been a lot of correspondence between Signor Mussolini and our Ambassador at Rome on this subject?

TSANA BARRAGE.

Mr. PONSONBY: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, whilst negotiating with Italy regarding the economic spheres of influence in Abyssinia, he kept in touch with the Government of Abyssinia; and whether and when the Government agreed to the building of a barrage for Lake Tsana?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The building of the Tsana barrage by His Majesty's Government or the Government of the Sudan was foreseen in assurances given to Sir John Harrington by the Emperor Menelik in March, 1902, and confirmed by an exchange of Notes, but the Agreement
of the Abyssinian Government to an actual scheme remains to be obtained. The communication to the Abyssinian Government, during the course of protracted negotiations with Italy, of information regarding their progress would not have contributed to their successful outcome. Once agreement had been reached, the Abyssinian Government were immediately informed of the substance of it.

Mr. PONSONBY: Is it correct, as stated in the Note which the Abyssinian Government sent to the League of Nations, that this Agreement was made without their knowledge?

TRADE UNIONS.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unregistered trade unions; and how many of the above possess a membership of more than 50,000?

The MINISTER Of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): The number of unregistered trade unions and other employes' associations concerned with the conditions of employment of their members was 704 at the end of 1924, the latest date for which complete figures are available. Of these, two have over 50,000 members.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what those two trade unions represent?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: They are, I think, the National Union of Teachers and the Union of Post Office Workers.

Mr. LEE: Does this return apply only to workmen's unions?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: This answer in particular applies to workmen's organisations.

Mr. W. THORNE: Are unregistered unions compelled to send in returns to the Registrar?

Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLAND: No, Sir.

Mr. KELLY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation at an early date to amend the law relating to trade unions; if so, whether one Bill will be introduced or more than one; and
whether, in the meantime, he will publish the conclusions at which the Government has arrived, so that there may be a, full opportunity of discussion throughout the country?

Commander FANSHAWE: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will amend trade union law so as to ensure that no larger sum than the average of that expended by societies registered under the Friendly Societies Act shall be used for the management and expenses, including salaries, of trade unions?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I shall answer these questions together. I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Mr. KELLY: Are we to understand that no promises have been made by the Government to any section of either workers' organisations or employers' organisations?

The PRIME MINISTER: Well, of course, without notice I could not answer that as regards what any individual members have said; but to my knowledge the answer would be in the negative.

Mr. KELLY: I am not referring to individual members of the Government, but to spokesmen of the Government when receiving deputations from sections of either workpeople's organisations or employers' organisations.

The PRIME MINISTER: I should have to have notice of that question. I have not received any myself.

Sir H. BR ITTA IN: 51.
asked the Minister of Labour whether there is any method by which any member of the public may obtain information as to the expenditure of unregistered trade unions and the proportion of expenses incurred in salaries other than working expenses, strike pay and other benefits?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Unregistered trade unions are not under a statutory obligation to make returns on their financial position, and information is available to the public only in so far as they voluntarily agree to its publication.

REGISTERED SOCIETIES (MANAGEMENT EXPENSES).

Commander FANSHAWE: 52.
asked the Minister of Labour what proportion of the total annual income is used for management expenses, including salaries, by societies registered under the Friendly Societies Act?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I have been asked to reply. No statistics are available which give the precise information desired. Societies registered under the Friendly Societies Act include not only friendly societies, but also working men's clubs, cattle insurance societies, benevolent societies, and especially authorised societies. The management expenses ratio on these four classes has never been calculated. In 1924 friendly societies (other than societies with branches, which include 50 per cent. of friendly society membership, and collecting societies) received total contributions of £6,430,000, and spent on management £690,000, or about 7½ per cent. of contributions. In the same year collecting societies spent 34 per cent. of their total income on management.

POISON GAS (PROTECTIVE MEASURES).

Mr. AMMON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether a gas mask sufficiently reliable to resist the newest discoveries in gases for use in warfare has been invented; and what steps do the Government propose to take to bring such to the attention of the civilian population and to provide instruction in the use of such protective measures?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is every reason to believe that protective measures are keeping abreast of current developments in gas warfare. As regards the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Attercliffe on the 10th February.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

PREFERENCE (MANDATED TERRITORIES).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether the forthcoming Im-
perial Conference will consider the difficulties of extending Imperial preference which arise from the fact that mandated territories are at present prohibited from reciprocating any Customs preferences that may be granted to them by other parts of the Empire?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have been asked to reply. I do not anticipate that this subject is likely to be raised at the forthcoming Imperial Conference.

Captain BENN: Has the attention .of the hon. Gentleman been called to the form of this question, which speaks of preferences being " at present prohibited " .? Is there any intention of altering the article of the Covenant which prohibits preferences in any mandated territory?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think the hon. and gallant Member is not correct in his statement. There is a great variation in the terms of the mandates. Under the terms of " C " mandates a country can receive preferences, under " B " mandates there are other conditions and " A " mandates stand in a category by themselves. The point of this question is whether the whole matter will be examined at the Imperial Conference, and I have said it will not be.

Captain BENN: But is there any intention of altering the general principle by which these territories held in trust give no preferences?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No alteration of the terms of the several mandates can take place without the unanimous decision of the Council of the League of Nations.

DIVORCE LAW.

Mr. RAMSDEN (for Mr. H. WILLIAMS): 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will bring to the notice of the Imperial Conference the terms of the Indian and Colonial Divorce Bill with a view to arranging for the extension Of the Bill to the self-governing Dominions and the passage of similar legislation by these Dominions?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: His Majesty's Government had not contemplated extending the principle of the present Bill to cover cases of persons domiciled here
and resident in the Dominions, or initiating a discussion on the matter at the Imperial Conference. But it would, of course, be open to any of the Dominion representatives to raise the question, should they so desire.

Captain BENN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that grave objection is taken to this in Scotland?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I know that there are objections, but, as I have said, the initiative would he open to any Dominion Government.

EMPIRE DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. MAC QU I STEN (for Lieut.-Colonel THOM): 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if at the forthcoming Imperial Conference any schemes for the development of the uninhabited territories of the British Empire, and of the Empire generally, will be considered?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My right hon. Friend has no doubt that the question of Empire development will arise in the course of the discussion on oversea settlement which is to be included in the Agenda for the Imperial Conference. There are, also other subjects for discussion at the Conference on which such questions may arise. But, for the reasons which my right hon. Friend mentioned in the course of his statement on the 29th July, it is for the Government of the area concerned to initiate the consideration of any particular scheme or schemes of this nature.

TURKEY (WAR. MUNITIONS).

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 50.
asked the Prime -Minister whether the Government, directly or through any agent, have been in negotiation during the present year for the sale of munitions of war or armaments to the Turkish Government or its agents; and whether the negotiations are still in progress?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No direct negotiations whatever have taken place. The only indirect overtures that I can trace consisted of inquiries of private firms, but so far as I am aware nothing materialised, and no negotiations are now in progress.

Mr. JONES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been directed to an article in a London paper this morning in which specific allegations are made that an offer, through an intermediary, was made on behalf of the British Government by a Birmingham firm to supply 100,000 rifles and 100,000,000 rounds of ammunition; and whether it is a fact that this offer was made, as it is declared to have been made, on the express authority of the Foreign Secretary himself; and whether he is prepared to deny it?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not get further in the article to which the hon. Gentleman refers than the head lines. The facts are as stated in my answer. There is nothing in international obligations or in our relations with the Turkish Government which should cause us to prevent British firms from supplying them with armaments if they desire it.

Mr. JONES: As there is nothing in international law, may I ask whether there is not something in the actual practice of nations that precludes us from doing this sort of thing?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Mr. W. THORNE: Do not firms have to get the permission of the Foreign Secretary before they can trade in that way?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, there has to be permission from the British Government for the export of arms, but that permission ought not to be capriciously withheld. There is nothing, as I say, in the state of the world or in our relations with the Turkish Government which should cause me to think it in the public interest to prohibit the export of arms to Turkey at the present day.

Mr. JONES: As a matter of fact, is it not stated specifically in one of the communications from the private firm to the Turkish Government that this kind of thing is done for the first time by this Government?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That I do not know, because I have not seen the communications which have passed between the private firm and the Turkish Government.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that British men-of-war were sunk in the Dardanelles by mines supplied by British firms, and is he prepared to see a repetition of that?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not contemplating a new war with Turkey. We have just successfully concluded negotiations which place our relations on the most satisfactory footing, and there, I trust, we shall be able to maintain them, if this House will allow us to do so.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that there is in Bedford Park a large gun captured from Germany which was made in Great Britain to kill British people?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question is irrelevant.

DERBYSHIRE MAGISTRATES(ADVISORY COMMITTEE).

Mr. LEE: 58.
asked the Attorney-General if he will give the names and addresses of the County of Derbyshire Magistrates Advisory Committee?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The following constitute the Derby County Advisory Committee:

His Grace the Duke of Devonshire, K.G., G. C. M. G., G. C. V.O., Chatsworth, Bakewell (His Majesty's Lieutenant).

G. H. Strutt, Esq., V.D., D.L., J.P., Bridge Hill, Belper.

C. R. Crompton, Esq., J.P., Stanton Hall, Stanton-by-Dale, Nottingham.

The Rt. Hon. J. H. Thomas, M.P., Unity House, Euston Road, N.W.1.

Mrs. Carruthers, J.P., 8, Gower Street, Bloomsbury.

Enoch Overton, Esq., J.P., 33, Oxcroft Road, Bolsover, Chesterfield.

Edwin C. Barnes, Esq., C.B.E., D.L.,
J.P., Ashgate Lodge, Chesterfield.

H. St. John Digby Raikes, Esq., K.C., J.P., C.B.E., 10, Eccleston Square, S.W.1.

Lord Doverdale, Westwood Park, Droitwich.

Mr. LEE: Does the Attorney-General think that four out of five members who are not resident in Derbyshire is a proper proportion?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have no information at all on the matter.

EDUCATION (HEALTH AND WELFARE COURSES).

Colonel DAY: 62.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will consider suggesting to education authorities the institution of health and welfare courses for the older girls in council schools, on lines similar to those given at the Bedford College for Women, with a view to the better fitting of such girls for the carrying out of the duties of later life?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): The subject of health education will be dealt with in a special chapter in the revised edition of the volume of " Suggestions for Teachers," now in course of preparation.

Colonel DAY: Will it, also contain a reference to the work of welfare education?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I cannot say specifically, but I think my answer covers that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR CYCLES (SILENCERS).

WARNING BY HOME SECRETARY.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: 63.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the noise caused in many cases by motor cycles; and whether he will take steps to secure a stricter enforcement of the law relating to the use of silencers?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 67.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the unnecessary noises created in the outer circle of Regent's Park by motorists and motor cyclists with open exhausts; and, in view of the discomfort and danger caused to invalids in the neighbourhood, whether he will devise some means of controlling or eliminating altogether this nuisance?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): This subject has been engaging my attention for some time.
The question of improving silencers in motor cycles has been under discussion between the Ministry of Transport and the British Cycle and Motor Cycle Manufacturers' and Traders' Union, but I regret nothing has resulted so far from the discussion. The only course now open to me is to instruct the police to take active steps to enforce the law, and I am accordingly doing so and issuing a warning to motorists that if they desire to escape liability to the penalty provided by the law they must see that their machines or any machine which they purchase are effectively silenced, and that they must so use and drive them as to reduce the noise of their exhausts as far as may be reasonably practicable.

Mr. HAYES: Is it not a fact that officers have been specially employed in detecting these offences, and that there have not been more detections is due to the inability more of police authorities to employ more officers on this work owing to many forces being under strength.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I told the House the other day that 4,000 prosecutions took place in London last year, and that does not seem to have had any effect. I am asking the police forces to see that the law is properly carried out.

Sir H. BR ITTA IN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a definition of an effective silencer?

THEATRICAL MANAGERS' REGISTRATION ACT, 1925.

Colonel DAY: 64
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that prosecutions for offences under the Theatrical Managers' Registration Act, 1925, can only be instituted in the district where such registration was effected; and will he consider an Amendment to the existing Act in order to provide for proceedings being instituted in the districts where performers may have been abandoned.?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: So far as I can see the Act already meets the hon. Member's case as an offence has to be prosecuted before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction within the area of which the offence was committed. If, however, the hon. Member will give me particulars of any difficulty which has arisen I will consider the matter further.

Colonel DAY: Is the Home Secretary aware that just lately a prosecution took place in London where the place of registration was Newport, and consequently the magistrate could not deal with the case?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member will give me the details of the case I will look into it.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I ask whether theatrical managers are in the habit of committing offences?

LOUD SPEAKERS (BY-LAWS).

Colonel DAY: 65.
asked the Home Secretary if he will suggest to local authorities the advisability of by-laws being adopted with a view to the nuisance occasioned by the use of loud speakers in gardens or open spaces being abated?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It would not be proper for me to intervene in a matter of this kind. It is for the local authority in the first instance to consider whether a substantial nuisance exists in their district which can be dealt with by by-law.

IRAQ (REMISSION OF DEBT).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 68.
asked the chancellor of the Exchequer why no Minute was presented to the House of Commons by the Treasury giving particulars and explaining the circumstances of the gift to the Iraq Government of the agreed sum due from that Government in respect of certain works and communications in Iraq?

Mr. McNEILL: This book debt consisted of a liability to pay the value of certain works of public utility constructed in Iraq during the period of military occupation, and subsequently transferred to the Iraq Government. The circumstances in which remission was considered desirable were explained to the House in the Report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young). No Minute is required to regularise the action of the Treasury in authorising remission.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider, having regard
to the fact that this gift was of an unusual nature and exceeded £10,000, that it was in accordance with the Treasury Minute of the 25th May, 1923, that no information should be given to this House?

Mr. McNEILL: Yes, Sir.

Captain BENN: Has the Treasury power to remit large debts like this, running into many thousands of pounds, without consulting this House at all?

Mr. McNEILL: Yes. Sir.

GERMAN REPARATION.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any information as to the memorandum sent to the Reparation Commission by the German Government making a claim on the charge of the annual payments?

Mr. McNEILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) on the 28th July.

Sir F. WISE: Was there not a meeting of the Reparation Commission at the Bank of England last week?

Mr. McNEILL: I do not know I must have notice of that question.

INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.

Sir F. WISE: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangement he has made with Portugal in regard to the debt of £23,000,000 due to Great Britain?

Mr. McNEILL: Negotiations in regard to this debt are at present taking place.

Mr. GILLETT: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any representation has been received from the new French Government on the question whether payments from France to England should be contingent on reparation payments received by France from Germany?

Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir.

PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES.

Sir F. WISE: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost to the Govern-
merit from 1st April to 30th June, 1926, and also the cost for the similar period of 1925, of old age pension, disability pension, war pension, national health insurance and unemployment insurance?

Service.
Cost (partly estimated).


1st April—30th June, 1925.
1st April—30th June, 1926.



£
£


Old Age Pensions
6,522,000
6,887,000


War Pensions (including War Disability Pensions)
16,891,000
16,175,000


National Health Insurance
1,966,000
1,680,000


Unemployment Insurance (Exchequer Contribution to Fund).
3,270,000
2,770,000


NOTES—


1. The figure for Old Age Pensions excludes the cost of administration. Other figures include the cost of administration.


2. Certain disability pensions, not included above, are also paid by the Service Departments, but their amount is negligible in comparison with the figures given above.

COINAGE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 75.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is proposed to make a change in the design of the coinage; which coins will he affected; and what is the reason for the change?

Mr. McNEILL: Proposals for improving the design on the reverse of certain silver coins have been under consideration, and a statement will be made when it is possible to give details.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the House of Commons any control over this matter before the designs on the coinage are altered?

Mr. McNEILL: Not so far as I am aware.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When this matter was under consideration, did the right hon. Gentleman consider the coining of five-shilling pieces again—crown pieces?

Mr. McNEILL: I think that that was one of the matters that were under consideration.

Colonel DAY: Is it contemplated that the three-penny bit shall be done away with?

Mr. McNEILL: As the answer consists of a table of figures, perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT,

Fallowing is the Table promised:

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say without notice.

TAXI-CABS.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 77.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now received a Report from the London Traffic Advisory Committee regarding prowling taximeter cabs; and, if so, what action he proposes to take to deal with this nuisance?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): I have nothing to add at present to the answer which was given to my hon. and gallant Friend in reply to a similar question which he put to the Minister on the 19th July.

HIGHLAND RAILWAY COMPANY (LITIGATION).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 78.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to state the extent of the financial liability to the Government involved in the Government's guarantee of responsibility for counsel in the recent case in which the Highland Railway Company were the appellants; whether the Government was consulted before four senior counsel and
one junior were briefed; and how many counsel were briefed to represent the defendants in the case?

Lieut. - Colonel MOORE-BRABAZ ON: The extent of the financial liability cannot be determined until the final judgment in the case is given. The retention of counsel was a matter for the railway company, but the Government were aware of the company's intentions in this respect, and, in all the circumstances, saw no reason to dissent from the proposal to brief additional senior counsel in the last stage of the case. I have no information as to the number of counsel briefed by the respondents, but I understand that three appeared on their behalf in the proceedings before the House of Lords.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when he will be in a position to tell the House what is the extent of the Government's liability in this matter, and whether the Treasury were consulted before this expenditure of public money was guaranteed?

Lieut. - Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I shall be able to tell the hon. Member the liability when the case has been decided in the House of Lords. Until then I do not know.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the Treasury were consulted about this expenditure of public money upon four senior and one junior counsel?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I should have to have notice of that question, but I understand the Government were consulted.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the money being spent among a very deserving class?

ROUNDABOUT TRAFFIC.

Mr. RYE: 79.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the danger to pedestrians caused by the adoption of one-way traffic in London, he will consider the advisability of abandoning the trials and reverting to the old traffic system?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I am aware that there is a fairly widespread impression that one-way streets in-
crease the danger to pedestrians, though the figures of accidents, which are available, tend to show that the risks have diminished rather than increased. My right hon. Friend the Minister has already asked the London Traffic Advisory Committee to advise him whether any steps can usefully be taken further to minimise the risk of accidents, to pedestrians, either by altering the position of the refuges or increasing their number.

Mr. RYE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the contrary view is held by prominent members of highway authorities, and that, in particular, at a meeting of the Westminster City Council, on Thursday last, it was thought that there is grave danger on the north side of Trafalgar Square, and the construction of a subway was advocated?

HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

SOLITAR V CONFINEMENT.

Mr. VIANT: 66.
asked the Home Secretary if such a. penalty as solitary confinement is permissible under the Prison Regulations; if so, what is the maximum length of time for which such is imposed and for what crime; and has it been necessary to impose such a penalty within recent years?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir. Solitary confinement was abolished long ago. The nearest approach to it, close confinement, is a punishment occasionally imposed for breaches of prison discipline, but it does not mean complete solitude. It can be awarded up to a period of three days by governors, up to 14 days by visiting committees of local prisons, and up to 28 days by boards of visitors and directors of convict prisons. The prisoner is allowed, on promise of good behaviour, an hour's exercise daily, after the first day's confinement, and to attend chapel on Sundays. Usually the confinement is to the prisoner's ol4n cell or a similar cell. Of recent years the Prison Commissioners have encouraged a tendency to substitute loss of privileges for close confinement. A table showing the number of prison punishments, including close confinement, will be found in Table B of Appendix 6 to the Commissioners' Annual Report for 1924–25.

PALESTINE (RAILWAY EMPLOYES' HOLIDAYS).

Mr. BROMLEY: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the recent action of the management of the Government railways in Palestine, in discontinuing the granting of annual holidays with pay and refusing to pay for statutory holidays to the staff, is with his knowledge and approval; if so, why has this step been taken; and what were the net profits of these railways during the last period estimated?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have no information regarding the first two parts of the question. During the financial year 1925–26 the excess of the actual revenue of the Palestine Government railways over the actual working expenditure was about £104,000. This represents less than 5 per cent. interest upon the estimated capital value of the railway.

Mr. BROMLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to make inquiries as to the position indicated in the question?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, Sir, we will make inquiries.

Sir F. WISE: Do these railways belong to the British Government or to the Palestine Government?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: They have been purchased by the Palestine Government.

EMPIRE MARKETING.

Mr. MACQUISTEN (for Lieut.-Colonel THOM): 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, whether any part of the sum of £500,000 allocated this year for the purpose of encouraging the sale of Empire produce has yet been expended; and when the Marketing Board are to begin their advertisement campaign?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement on this subject which my right hon. Friend made in the course of the Debate last week on the Second Reading of the Bill, to which I am not at present in a position to add anything.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

RELIEF (MODE OF DISTRIBUTION).

Mr. E. W. H. WOOD (for Colonel BURTON): 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the economy which can be effected by distributing relief in kind instead of cash; and whether he will cause instructions to be issued to the various boards of guardians throughout the country to cease distributing cash and institute a general system of relief in kind?

Sir K. WOOD: in the Circular which my right hon. Friend issued at the commencement of the present dispute, he drew the attention of boards of guardians to the importance of granting a substantial proportion of any relief in kind. He doubts whether there would be advantage in issuing any further recommendations on the subject.

CASUAL WARDS, (ORTH-WESTERN AREA.

Mr. LOWTH: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of there having been only two dissentient boards of guardians in the area, he will reconsider his refusal to sanction a proposal submitted by the North-Western Voluntary Vagrancy Committee last July, under the Casual Poor (Relief) Order, 1925, that the ordinary house dinner be supplied to casuals when detained?

Sir K. WOOD: The dietary of casuals was carefully considered before the Casual Poor (Relief) Order, 1925, was issued, and my right hon. Friend attaches importance to uniform compliance with the dietary prescribed therein. He is, however, prepared to consider any further representations which the North-Western Joint Vagrancy Committee may desire to submit to him.

38. Mr. LOWTH: asked the Minister of Health whether he can give a list of casual wards closed in the area of the North-Western Joint. Vagrancy Committee?

Sir K. WOOD: Complete information is being obtained, and will be forwarded to the hon. Member.

SEAL FISHERIES, NORTH PACIFIC.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir DALRYMPLE WHITE: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs whether the present Soviet Government of Russia has continued the agreement embodied in the International Convention between His Majesty's Government, the United States of America, the Imperial Government of Japan, and the late Imperial Government of Russia prohibiting the killing, taking, and hunting of seals and sea otters within the waters covered by the Seal Fisheries (North Pacific) Act, 1895.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. As regards the waters covered by the Convention referred to, these are described in Article 1 as "the waters of the North Pacific Ocean, north of the 30th parallel of north latitude, and including the seas of Behring, Kamchatka, Okhotsk and Japan."

WAR PENSIONS, BIRMINGHAM (FINAL AWARDS).

M. Sir F. WISE (for Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE): asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that the Birmingham War Pensions Committee, at a recent meeting, complained of the attitude of the Ministry with regard to final awards; and will he consider the advisability of having cases reopened where it can be proved that injustice has been done to the ex-service men who are suffering by reason of their service?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (Lieut. - Colonel Stanley): My right hon. Friend has not yet received any representations from this Committee arising out of their recent meeting. I would remind the hon. Member that, as has been repeatedly stated in this House, administrative measures have long since been taken to deal with the wholly exceptional ease where a final award is proved to be erroneous.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

The following question, stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir H. BRITTAIN:
73. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost in the way of labour and material in the manufacture of the penny; what number of these coins was minted during the last 12 months; and whether, in view of the considerable bulk
and weight of this coin, he will give consideration to designs for something smaller and of more convenient size to be introduced at an early date?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I not put Question No. 73? It has not been called.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has exceeded his ration.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: If you will count my questions, Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that they are not over the ration.

Mr. SPEAKER: I will count them again, but I have this question marked as the fourth in the hon. Member's name.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: I only put down three.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: (later): I should still like to put Question No. 73, if I may, on the second round.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have inquired into that. My counting was done on the Blue Paper, which is the official notice to the House. I find that the hon. Member asked that a question should be taken off. That question appeared on the Blue Paper as No. 31, which accounts for the gap in the numbers in to-day's Question Paper, where there is a question missing between No. 30 and No. 32.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: I put three questions on the Order Paper, and, unless I am on starvation rations, I submit that I am entitled to ask three.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have had to rule before that Members could not withdraw a question, and in that way get in a fourth one. The Blue Paper is the official notice to the House; the White Paper is printed merely for convenience.

BRITISH GOODS (RETAINED IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 74.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the aggregates of the retained imports and the exports of British goods of kinds to which safeguarding duties have been applied during the first half of 1926 and of
1925, respectively, and also the aggregates of the retained imports and exports of British goods to which no such duties have been applied for the same periods?

A RETURN of the AGGREGATES of the value of retained IMPORTS, and the EXPORTS 
(MANUFACTURES of the UNITED KINGDOM), of GOODS (a) to which "safeguarding" duties under 
the FINANCE ACT, 1925, and the SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (CUSTOMS DUTIES) ACT, 1925, have been 
applied, (b) to which no such duties have been applied, registered during the SIX MONTHS, 
JANUARY—JUNE, 1926 and 1925, respectively.


Group.
January—June, 1926.
January—June, 1925.


Retained Imports.
Exports (United Kingdom Goods).
Retained Imports.
Exports (United Kingdom Goods).


(a) Safeguarded Goods:
£
£
£
£


Lace and embroidery
259,691
990,850
363,145
1,314,116


Cutlery
118,969
397,468
186,461
433,115


Gas Mantles
29,815
15,049
120,737
18,004


Impregnated hose or stockings for use in the manufacture of mantles for incandescent 
lighting.
8
14
Not available.


Gloves of leather or of fur, and cotton fabric gloves and material for such 
gloves.
612,965
69,250
1,783,573
91,421

Total
1,021,448
1,472,631
2,453,916
1,856,656


(b) Other Goods:






All other manufactured goods (Class III—Wholly or mainly manufactured).
136,317,018
273,979,760
155,515,169
310,862,874


It should be noted that the imports of the safeguarding goods under (a) were increased by forestalments prior to the imposition of the duties, and that these forestalments have diminished imports in the first half of 1926.

FEDERATION OF BRITISH INDUSTRIES.

The following question stood on the Order Paper in tire name of Mr. THUILTLE:
76. To ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the figures for the year ended 31st December, 1925, of the Federation of British Industries, showing the total receipts, working expenses, officers' salaries, allowances, amid expenses, respectively?

Mr. W. THORNE: May I put Question No. 76?

Mr. SPEAKER: Has the hon. Member been asked to do so by the hon. Member in whose name the question stands?

Mr. THORNE: No, Sir; but I should like to have the privilege.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Questions 53, 54 and 55 have not been answered.

Mr. McNEILL: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the available information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister is not here.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What will you do about that, Mr. Speaker? The Minister ought to be here.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister was here on the first round. He is not obliged to be here on the second round, if hon. Members are not present to put their questions earlier.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings in Committee on Small Holdings and Allotments [Money] be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 50.

Division No. 422.]
AYES.
[3.35 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Hammersley, S. S.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Murchison, C. K.


Albery, Irving James
Harrison, G. J. C.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Hawke, John Anthony
Nicholson. Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Headlam, Lieut,Colonel C. M.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Atholl, Duchess of
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Balniel, Lord
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hills, Major John Walter
Ramsden, E.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Hilton, Cecil
Rhys. Hon. C. A. U.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hogg, Rt, Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Berry, Sir George
Holland, Sir Arthur
Ruggles-Brisel Major E. A.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brass, Captain W.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Rye, F. G.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandon, Lord


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n,
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smithers, Waldron


Crookshank. Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jacob, A. E.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Stanley, Col- Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Dawson, Sir Philip
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stott. Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Ellis. R. G.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Tasker, Major R. Inlgo


Elveden, Viscount
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tinne, J. A.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S-M.)
Macdonald. Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisie)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacIntyre, Ian
Wells, S. R.


Falie, Sir Bertram G.
McLean, Major A.
White, Lieut.-Col Sir G. Dalrymple


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fielden, E. B.
Macquisten, F. A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Fraser, Captain Ian
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wolmer, Viscount


Fremantie. Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Womersley, W. J.


Gates, Percy
Malone, Major P. B.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Margesson, Captain D.
Wood. Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)


Grace, John
Merriman, F. B.
Worthington Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moles, Thomas



Greene, W. P. Crawford
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Moore. Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Major Sir Harry Barnston and


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Mr. F. C. Thomson.




NOES.


Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gosling, Harry
Lowth, T.


Ammon, Charles George
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lunn, William


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenall, T.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Bondfield, Margaret
Groves, T.
Riley, Ben


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Bromley, J.
Hardle. George D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hirst. W. (Bradford, South)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Dalton, Hugh
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Day, Colonel Harry
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Windsor, Walter


Duncan, C.
Kelly, W. T.
Young. Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.



Fenby, T. D.
Kirkwood, D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Lawrence, Susan
Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Hayes.


Gillett, George M.
Lee, F.

FACTORIES (No. 2) BILL.

"to consolidate, with Amendments, the enactments relating to Factories; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Secretary Sir WILLIAM. JOYNSON-HICKS; supported by Captain Hacking; to he read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 183.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,

Greenock Corporation Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Adoption of Children Bill, with Amendments.

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 164.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE.

Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: I wish to raise a very important topic, namely, the survey of land. This question has been raised in this House last year and repeatedly this year. I think the time has come when we ought to know what the Government intend to do in regard to this matter. As Chairman of a Private Committee more than two years ago, I found the greatest difficulty in getting the necessary information on which to arrive at an opinion as to the condition of agriculture in this country. We have no real information on this question of agriculture. Since 1875, no census has been taken. America, with its enormous territory of 350,000,000 acres, can take the necessary survey every ten years. We have taken no survey since 1875 We want to know what are the economic and social implications of the existing system. We want an economic survey that will cover the land at present cultivated. We want to know the kind of land that is used, how it is used and the quality of the cultivation.
I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Scotland present, because I am sure that his example ought to push along the Minister of Agriculture in the direction in which we wish to go. His survey of Kincardine, of which I hope he will tell us, is a move in the right direction, and I am happy to think that he is going to extend it to two other Scottish areas. Why the Minister of Agriculture cannot have a survey of the poorer lands of England, and why we cannot get a sample census of the land of England, beats me to know. A lot of the poorer lands of England are waterlogged, and we know that there are many of the very light lands in England that are dropping out of cultivation. We want to know the
reason for that. Surely it is the business of the Government and of the Minister of Agriculture to give the necessary information to this House. It is estimated by authorities that at least 200,000 acres of land in England are waterlogged and useless, and that there are certainly 1,000,000 acres that could be reclaimed and made useful for agriculture.
Before we can arrive at a solution of the very serious position in which agriculture is placed to-day, we want to know what land is suitable for the various types of cultivation and what land is suitable for afforestation. How is the land owned? We want to know the number of occupiers, the number of holdings and whether the occupiers occupy more than one holding. Above all, we want to know what form of transportation is available for these various forms of cultivation. Are the roads suitable and are the railway facilities suitable? Can they get their produce to the market and can they get their necessary supplies from the ports to their farms, when they have to get their supplies from overseas? This question of transportation is very serious. Incidentally, we want to know how far the tax on heavy vehicles is taking away the use of such vehicles from the farmers. In individual cases, to my knowledge, farmers who are now farming large tracts of land and who use these tractors for taking sheep and other animals to market, have now ceased to use them because of the heavy taxation
We want to know a great deal about buildings. What many farms lack, particularly in the poorer areas, are suitable buildings in order to carry on the necessary business of agriculture. The buildings are unsuited for housing cattle and for covering up farm implements. Undoubtedly, England, especially in the poorer areas, is much behind Scotland in this respect. The census should tell us exactly what buildings exist, and what are necessary for the successful carrying on of the farms. It should also tell us the buildings that are necessary for housing the farm servants and other workers. I am not one who believes that a tied house on a farm is a bad thing. My experience is that these houses are the necessary equipment of large farms. The men are housed close to their work, they cultivate small gardens in their spare time, and they are much fitter than the worker who has to go long distances back from the
farm to his house, and is very tired when he gets home at night. There are many farms in England where buildings do not exist and farmers are unable to get the necessary labour they require because they cannot house the labourers.
I welcome what the Government are doing towards the repair of worn-out farm houses. It is said that this is money for the landlords, but it is also money for the farm workers, because it is necessary to provide healthy buildings for farm workers. One of the reasons why people are moving from the country districts to the towns is because there is a lack of proper housing accommodation; and in any return that is made we should be told what the real position is. It is only after we have had a proper census made of what is required that we can consider the legislation that is necessary. We also want to know the general position of allotments. In Scotland we have a good system of providing a small amount of land around the farm buildings, but in England there is nothing of the sort, or very little. We want to know exactly what land the houses have got, and what they might have. Then there is the question of the educational facilities for the children of these workers, and their social conditions—whether the social environment is attractive and going to tend towards keeping the men on the land. We also want to know the kind of farming, by districts, which will really give some return on the capital invested. We have various types of farming. There is dairy farming, which sonic people say is the only kind of farming paying to-day. There is also stock farming, but the real foundation of agriculture is the arable farmer, whether he is producing milk or cereals.
The Minister of Agriculture is closely associated, I know, with the use of cereals. Let me tell him that the use of cereals in this country is in a very serious position. Farmers who are trying to run a rotation of crops and make their farms pay find that they are losing money every year. This last season the crop has been a particularly bad one, and the reason is that they are unable to market their cereals. There has been a continua fall in markets. Take the case of wheat. The bulk of the wheat grown in England is not milled for flour. A great deal of the wheat that is milled comes from
abroad. Millers, especially large millers, find that to have a strong flour they must have a strong wheat like Canadian, American, or Australian, and they are unable to use more than a small percentage of home-grown wheat. Any census that goes to the bottom of the agricultural problem should tell us what the. wheat is used for; you have to get down to the percentage of home-grown wheat that is used by our millers. If you go to the large mills at the London Docks, Hull, Liverpool, Edinburgh or Glasgow, you will find that less than 10 per cent. of home-grown wheat is used by them in the production of flour, and the necessary bread for our people. Whether millers want a particularly strong type of flour in order to produce bread which will keep racist for a longer time I do not know, but we ought to know what happens to this wheat. I am satisfied that we might do a great deal towards producing the wheat that is turned into flour by improving the seed, by using this new Yeoman seed that is now produced at Cambridge and which has been tried in one or two counties in Scotland with good results. It has certain characteristics and is used freely by millers. It can be graded and bulk handled. We want to know what has happened to when, throughout the country.
Then as to barley The large barley farmers complain that they cannot sell their barley. The reason is that the products from which beer is made are provided largely from abroad. We want to follow out what happens to the barley; how much is turned into malt for beer; how much beer is made from foreign imported barley: how much whisky in Scotland is made from imported barley, and how much from home-grown barley. I am convinced that there is a very grave decrease in the amount of barley now used as compared with the amount used 10 years ago. Then you come down to the potato crop, one of the most important, not only for the action it has on the land, but as a food for the people. There again you get farmers having to take part in a purely speculative trade. One year potatoes are £10 a ton; next year they are £5, and last year they were 25s. The farmer is entirely in the hands of the world's market. We want to know from the Minister of Agriculture exactly what is the position of this very fine
food. I do not know how far the Committee of Imperial Defence has examined the question of the food supply of this country, but at any rate it ought to be closely examined. There is no crop that can produce food more quickly than the potato crop, and it is most important we should see that it is cultivated to advantage.
4.0 P.M.
One thing I must point out. We do not know what land requires lime, the deficiency of lime, and where we can get lime. I am sure that there are a great many places where lime used to be produced which are now closed down, and it would be of great value to agriculture as a whole if we could get a proper census and know where this lime comes from. Some two years ago—it does not come under my right bon. Friend's jurisdiction, but under that of the Board of Trade—a. census of production was ordered. The late Minister of Agriculture, Lord Irwin, promised that something would be done in this direction to meet the demand for a census. How soon are we to expect a preliminary Report with these figures? We know that the whole of the figures cannot be given quickly, but we might at least have some form of preliminary Report which would guide us in the direction in which we want to go. I would like to remind the Minister of Agriculture what his predecessor said. In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), this day last year, Lord Irwin said:
The right hon. Gentleman pressed me a good deal on the question of an agricultural survey in reference to the Debate we had earlier in the session. I agree with him to-night, as I agreed with him then, that what we want in this matter are facts, and not opinions. I have applied my mind, as I have in all these Debates, to the best way of producing the facts. After mature consideration I have decided, for reasons which I cannot go into now, that the Agricultural Returns Act would not give us what we want. I have, therefore, decided to make a rather extended use of the census of production that, it so happens, falls due this year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1926; col. 1091, Vol. 187.]
Again earlier in the year Lord Irwin said that he entirely agreed that this census was required. He said:
I have in mind, if it could be achieved, something quite different. I would like to get a national record of the state and possible productivity of English land, and,
therefore, while I will certainly consider what has been suggested on this point, I am inclined to doubt whether this Bill"—
the Agricultural Returns Bill—
will give it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1925; col. 2292, Vol. 182]
He again refers to it later on in other Debates. He says that he considers a census of agricultural land or at least a sample of it is necessary, and I am perfectly certain that he has in mind an early census of various sample districts throughout England. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he still adheres to the necessity for this census. I am perfectly certain that he would not be one to go back on what his predecessor thought was really necessary. He ought to take a leaf out of Scotland's book and get on with it, because, after all, it is a very serious matter. We also want to know the amount of land that could be reclaimed. Many years ago, especially in Norfolk, we had large reclamations of lands which are now very fertile, but it seems that in recent years we have done absolutely nothing towards reclaiming land which has been taken from us by the sea and by the rivers and in the waterlogged areas of this country. If you take other countries, you will find that between 1846 and 1923 Belgium reclaimed no less than 558,000 odd acres; Denmark, since 1860, something like 1,000,000 acres; that Germany are at present busy reclaiming about 60 square miles near Berlin; and that Holland, between 1900 and 1918, have reclaimed something like 250,000 acres, and are now busy at the Zuyder Zee. I am sure that there must be quantities of land that could be reclaimed if we only had the requisite information, and, if we could use some of the present unemployed on the work, we could get a real return for our money.
Then there is the question of land drainage. We do not really know the necessity in this country for land drainage. Anyone who goes and walks through the fields knows the condition of the land. It was drained 40 or 50 years possibly with pipes too small, and now the drains are choked and the poorer and especially the heavier lands want redraining. As far as I can see, the Government, since 1921, have done very little in the matter of land drainage. In 1921–22, they spent £248,000 on
drainage schemes; in 1923, £270,000; in 1924–25, £253,000; and now we are down to £170,000. The figures are a mere bagatelle for such an important thing as the draining of land. You cannot grow crops on sodden land; you lose money every time. The lack of land drainage has been estimated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture to cost at least £80,000,000 a year in England alone. Surely, if he could recover some of that money, it would be well worth doing. I was very interested in the Forestry Commission's Report to September, 1925. There anyway, something has been done, and I congratulate the Government on what they are doing. They have not done enough and they are doing less than the programme and than the Report suggested—there are a good many thousand acres more that might be done—but still they are doing something in that direction.
A census would also give us a very clear idea what land is available for small holdings and the number of people we could put on those small holdings. The real thing is to find out what is the demand, what land is available, and what is the price of that land, whether it is going to he charged at a fictitious value or whether it can be bought, either through a local authority or through a national authority, at its agricultural value. Everyone who has anything to do with small holdings knows that the cost, especially the cost of equipment, is very heavy. It is right that the land that we use for small holdings should lie the best land that we can get hold of. If is no use putting smallholders on to the worst land. I have seen tracts of very bad land all over the country which has been sold for small holdings, probably to people who did not know the difference between one class of land and another. The result has been that the State has lost a good deal of money. A census would give us the type of land available, the position of that land in relation to industrial areas, and the possibility of equipping the land.
I do not think there is any great demand for buying small holdings. I know that the number that has been bought with the facilities given through the county councils is very small, something like 400 or 500 in 30 years. What
the smallholder really wants is good land suitably equipped and a certain amount of financial help over a period of years. He wants to get hold of a little spare money for handling his small holding and to enable him to make it a successful venture. According to the right hon. Gentleman, there were, on 8th July, 1926, 14,847 applicants—I am not quite sure that does not cover those who desire small holdings—and of that number only 612 had been approved. Surely, we can get a bigger move on. If we can only get more people settled on our countryside it will cure many of the evils from which we suffer to-day. Another thing which the census would tell us is the amount of land required for allotments, which I hold is one of the most important forms of cultivation in this country. Allotments, however, must be close to the habitation of those who work them. When I was in Germany I noticed, with a great deal of interest, the development of allotments in the large cities there. New parts of towns were laid out with trams and everything and ground for allotments was apportioned near to the new buildings. Certainly, in looking forward, we ought, in town-planning, to lay down definite areas for allotments. At the end of 1924, we had something like—

Mr. SPEAKER: I rather think that a good many of these things would require legislation. To-day, on the Appropriation Bill, we are governed by the rules of Supply and must not discuss things which require legislation.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: I did not intend to ask for legislation on these matters. I was only pointing out that we cannot know what is required until we have a census. We want to know the demand for allotments and the. position of the land available, and I am trying to point out to the Minister of Agriculture that it is necessary to have this census in order to find out what is really wanted. After all, the real trouble in this question of allotments is the position, the rent, and the question of the fixity of tenure. Many of these people are turned out at short notice. We want to know the tracts of land near industrial areas that can be used for allotments. I look upon this as a very important thing, because allotments will certainly carry through many poor families in times like these, when we have such industrial distress.
Another question on which I would like to touch is that of housing. We do not know what is the position of rural housing. We do not know what difficulties farmers experience in getting houses for their workers. It is most important that we should know what houses are required by the various cultivators of the soil and what houses can suitably be put on the land. As I have said, I am one of those who hold that the iniquity of tied houses has been overstated. The farm worker's house should form part of the equipment of the farm. The nearer such houses are to the men's work, the better. It is the business of the Minister to find out what are the requirements of the farmers, so that he can shape his policy accordingly. This survey has been long overdue, and I hope and trust that almost immediately he will set about taking samples of the various areas in the country, not forgetting some of the poorer and heavier lands, so that we can really know what are the facts, and so that we can get on and try to alleviate and improve a very important and difficult industry.

Mr. NOEL. BUXTON: The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken has very cogently elaborated the grounds for urging on the Minister what both he and I have on several occasions urged on him before, namely, the institution of a survey. I will not labour that point again, but I would use my opportunity to support warmly the proposal for a survey, because it is a step which is absolutely required before you proceed to what is above all necessary, the raising of our standard of farming. We must obtain some better means than we have now of improving the production of our land, and a survey is interesting as a step to that. We have not been able to get much change out of the Minister in regard to this question of the survey, for he has been busying himself with other lines of approach to the English and Welsh agricultural problem. I would like to point out what he has been doing. Take stock for a moment of the Government record. Compare the hopes of 18 months ago, when the Government came into office and there was a great deal of talk about increasing our arable area by 1,000,000 acres, with what has been done since that date. It is rather a fall from the sublime to the ridiculous to have had much labour given to very small things, such as weights and
measures at cattle fairs, subventions of drainage, and lately a Bill to increase the number of small owners.
In view of the admitted urgency of making better use of our resources in general, I cast about for a word which properly characterises the Minister's attempts to deal with the great problem, and it seems to me that the word is "footling." I am afraid that my vocabulary does not provide me with a more appropriate word, and if you compare the needs with the work, I do not think my word is unjust. The Minister is genuinely interested in many sides of agriculture. I wish he would pursue them. I remember that some years ago he introduced a Bill on another side of the matter, on the humanitarian side, in connection with operations on horses—an admirable thing. The right hon. Gentleman has a genuine interest in these things. I wish that he would pursue his real interests and not occupy his time over methods which are really small and which would not he necessary if the Government would deal with the fundamental causes of the trouble. When you are trying to deal with the admitted defects of our production, to attack it with these little Measures is like hunting a tiger with a pop-gun. What has the right hon. Gentleman done, after nearly two years of work for agriculture, to improve the level of farming on a single farm? I do not see what any of these Measures is likely to effect in that way. Have they affected the equipment of a single farm? The whole edifice of our agriculture is admitted to he cracking. I need only quote the Minister's predecessor, when he said:
Either the soil is going to be starved, and is gradually going to lose some of its fecundity, and the land become waterlogged, or the nation is going to say, We cannot watch this process going on, and the State will come in to fulfil the function of the old landlord by lending capital.'
I think that the State will have to come in a great deal further than that. By common agreement, the edifice is, in a sense, cracking. But what are the Minister's Measures doing? They are like the man who plasters over his house to hide the cracks, when what he ought to do is to underpin the building. What do we see as we go about the country? I was very distressed to see in Suffolk, I think in the Minister's Division, the
roofs of some extremely good barns falling in because the owner had not money enough to repair them. In Essex there is an enormous area which is positively handicapped by want of lime, and another great area by want of drainage. The farmer is handicapped because his partner in the business is failing to carry out his share of the bargain to provide the buildings and the drainage.
I want to call attention, in connection with the need of a survey as a step to great progress, to a model which we already possess of the advantages of such a survey. I refer to the Crown lands. In the case of Crown lands we control a very large area. Everyone is familiar with the fact that there are Crown lands; it has not struck anyone as revolutionary that the land belongs to the State. The State has stepped in already. There is an opportunity for model management, and that is the State ownership which provides the State, un that area of land, with the opportunity of completing an efficient survey. I would like to give a few facts in order to show what results from an efficient survey. I was talking the other day to the chairman of a county agricultural committee. He was admitting that the present system is dying, that it is not fulfilling its functions, but his feeling was "I am not going to do anything to replace it with another one." There it seems to me is a characteristic of the Tory mind, which, however, is not appropriate when you are dealing with what is really a very big loss in our national resources. I saw last week a very successful farmer in a Home County. He makes lots of money out of his land and, incidentally, pays wages a great deal higher than the official rates. He was telling me of the great number of farms in his district which are going down for want of equipment and for want of farmer's capital and knowledge. He also cannot see any cure. But all the time we have within our ascertained experience a model of what can be done by good administration, combined with an efficient survey of the land.
Let me toll the House two or three facts about the Crown lands, which naturally come under the purview of the
Minister, as they came under my purview when I was Minister. You might imagine from what is said about the State ownership of land that the tenants of Crown lands were suffering from a horde of officials. But ask the Crown tenants whether they are hampered in their work. The difference to be noticed between Crown lands and most other lands, is that it is well equipped, and that the agency is very good. The farmers' standard of farming is controlled by the condition of their tenure; it is not controlled by a third party butting in and worrying them to do something which they do not want to do. It is controlled in the only possible way which is free from friction, by the control which the owner naturally has in letting the land. All this time, for want of such a method, over great areas we are losing perhaps 20 per cent. of the production which would result, not from specially high-class farming, but, according to the general opinion of the heist authorities, merely by bringing up the low standard to the medium or ordinary and average standard of the land as it is farmed now. Twenty per cent means, perhaps, in rough figures, £50,000,000 of production a year, and that is not a thing about which we can afford to be idle. It is very relevant to the proposal before the House of a survey, to remember that these benefits to Crown lands have resulted from an efficient survey over an area which is nearly 200,000 acres, if you include the two Duchies, and it is not much short of that even if you confine it strictly to agricultural lands. You have also about 450,000 acres under the county councils, which is in principle land in the same position of public ownership.
It is very interesting to notice that, since the Crown lands were taken over by a new firm of agents in 1007, an extraordinary improvement has taken place both in the rents and in the population on the land. In 14 years the rents rose by 37 per cent. and there was not a bankrupt farmer nor a decrease of prosperity on the farms. The small holding area at the beginning of that period was 900 acres, and it has increased in the 14 years to 14,000 acres—from 16 per cent. of the whole property to 19.3 per cent. of the same land. There was not a single bankruptcy among that large
number of smallholders. Owing to having an efficient survey of that very large area, equal to a moderate county the need of drainage was realised, and in that short period £18,000 was spent on drainage. The figure for repairs was extraordinarily low, owing to the good agency, spread over such a
very large area. The repairs were actually under 7 per cent, of the rental. I knew an estate once where they were 4 per cent., but that was phenomenal. Most estates are far higher. These farms are in good order at that greatly improved figure.
One might suppose that some Labour Government had established landowning on a great scale like this. Suppose that it came before us as a new proposal, what a fearful shock we should have. If Labour were responsible for the existence of this great public estate, we should be told that the complaints in the counties were loud and long. But what is most distressing for those who are horrified at the idea of public ownership is that there is no complaint at all from these districts. Are the farmers distressed? You find that there is a rush for land on most properties when a vacancy occurs. On the Crown lands there is an even greater demand. Is it, regarded as an eyesore in those counties, I think about 12, where the Crown owns land? On the contrary, you do not see the roofs falling in as you do in other parts of the country on private land. Is it an offence and a by-word to have this Socialist ownership, this red flag land, spread about Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, and so on? On the contrary, local feeling is rather proud to have Crown properties and samples of a well managed estate in the district. But you would probably say, if such properties were created by the Labour party, that it was by some extravagant expenditure. On the contrary, the Crown Estate is a very good investment to the Crown, and an improving one.
I adduce that as an example of what can be done with an efficient survey combined with an efficient levelling up of the standard of farming. Contrast what the Minister offers to us as his cure for the trouble. He wants to increase the number of owners of land. There arc familiar arguments for that, but no one
will deny that the English farmers do not want to be the owners of their land. Some of them have had too bitter a taste of it; the rest are anxious to keep out, and they have none too much capital for working their land. All occupying owners, I am afraid, are not models of improved farming since they became owners, and you have just as great difficulty, if not greater difficulty, with private ownership in levelling up the standard and in replacing the indifferent farmer by the worthy farmer, while there are many worthy men who are unable to get farms. If you increase the number of private owners and values improve, as they must improve, with the decrease in area of the world which grows wheat in proportion to population, you are only going to lose for the public the increase of values which is their due. If you increase the number of private owners the labourer has to wait for land a great deal longer, because, I think, even under the scheme of the Liberal party, you are not to have quite a free hand to take the land where you want to for small holdings or allotments, but you are to be guided more or less by the chance of land falling into the market.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.

Mr. BUXTON: I am glad that my right hon. Friend agrees that there must he a perfectly free hand for the public to take that land which is suited for small holdings or allotments. It seems to me, as compared with such a scheme, the efforts of the Government—and they have been numerous in their small way—represent mere tinkering, which leaves untouched t he primary need of the situation—that is to keep the farms in good order, to increase the population on the land where it pays, and to level lip the standard of farming.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: On this day of the year—perhaps the only day in the case of scores of thousands of our fellow-citizens, when they have the opportunity of gaining some practical knowledge of what is meant by the slogan of "Back to the land "—it is not inappropriate that, following the precedent of last year, we should spend a short time in the discussion which has been initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison). I support his demand for a survey of a compre-
hensive character, and I desire to emphasise the urgency of the need for such a census. It is no use any longer talking as if the provision of such a survey was impossible, or was even too difficult, for the Ministry of Agriculture to undertake. As has been pointed out, the United States of America has a survey every 10 years of an area approaching 350,000,000 acres. If that is possible in America, a survey such as we ask for is not impossible in this country. In fact, we need not go as far as America to find an example. An experiment has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Scottish people seem to be as inquisitive as they are acquisitive.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We do not get much here.

Mr. EVANS: Some of us in this country, although we cannot hope to emulate the Scottish people in the last-named respect, would like to follow their example in regard to the first-named quality. I should like to know when we may have an opportunity of studying the Report of the Scottish survey. I am sure it will be a valuable document, and I hope the Government will extend the experiment and will make similar surveys in other parts of the country. Many people were dubious in the past about such a survey, but it has since been endorsed by many people of experience and practical knowledge of agriculture I would refer to a letter in the "Times" of this morning from Sir Henry Rew, whose experience in agricultural matters will not be questioned in any part of the House. That letter is a strong endorsement of the demand which has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montrose. It is true he points out the difficulties and says those who ask for a survey ought to have a clear idea as to what they intend, and as to what should be included in the survey. He makes the suggestion, which I think worthy of consideration, that if there should be doubt on that point a small Committee should be set up to decide the scope of the inquiry and the survey which is to be made. I pass from the "Times" to the "Morning Post." There is a communication in the
"Morning Post" from Mr. Gavin, who starts by pouring scorn upon this demand and then goes on to say that he would like to see a report on two questions, namely, the use of lime and land drainage. These are obviously questions of practical importance, if a survey is to be useful, but there are many other questions upon which a survey would he equally suitable and perhaps more valuable.
The predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman as Minister of Agriculture appeared to be quite convinced of the desirability of a survey of this character. I am not going to quote the passages which have been read by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montrose, but the late Minister of Agriculture showed clearly that he was greatly impressed by the desirability of having a survey of this character, although he could not see his way to grant it. At the time he said he hoped to get similar results by utilising the census of production which was due to be made last year. Incidentally, I should like to ask the representative of the Board of Trade when we may expect that Report. Of course it is a report the preparation of which will take some time, and I am not urging any hasty preparation of it, but in the case of the census of population we often have an interim report, and I do not see why a similar course could not be followed in regard to the census of production. I gather that the present Minister of Agriculture is not so impressed by the urgency of the demand as his predecessor. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. C. P. Williams) on 6th July put a question t o the Minister asking whether he had decided to institute an agricultural survey, and what terms of
reference he proposed to lay down. I understand the right hon. Gentleman at that time was not in a position to give a definite answer, but said the matter was receiving his careful attention.
Even if the Minister does not realise the desirability of a survey his Department does. His Department issues periodically a series of very interesting and valuable documents known as the "Economic Series." They have issued reports on agricultural credits, on cooperation and many other matters which are full of valuable information. If that can be done in regard to particular
items, why is it impossible or undesirable to have a survey which will not be con-fined to one aspect of the problem but will deal in a comprehensive manner with all aspects of the question. As the late Minister of Agriculture realised, the Agricultural Returns Act is not sufficient for the purpose. Re claimed the credit for introducing that Act and we do not deny it to him but it is not sufficient. It is too narrow and the Ministry cannot ride off from this demand on the ground that they have given us the Agricultural Returns Act. It has been said that narrow-souled people are like narrow-necked bottles; the less they have in them, the more noise is mode in pouring it out. When there is a demand for a large Measure of this sort, Government Departments produce some small return and claim that it is adequate for the purpose. In this case we want a more detailed and comprehensive survey giving us the information which we require. As an illustration of the desirability of such returns I mention the case of smallholdings and allotments. In the series of reports to which I have referred, there recently appeared a report on Land Settlement in England and Wales. This report rose to the height of quoting from "Punch"
A warmer be a man as won't own up as 'e's made a profito'ow—artful like; an' small-olders, they be men as won't never admit they be doing badly—terrible obst'nit-minded.
In this Report it is stated that since the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act was passed there has been a great increase in the number of people who have been settled on the lend. That is a matter on which we ought to pride ourselves, as showing one of the directions in which an attempt has been made to meet the cases of men who had served in the Forces and who were desirous of being settled on the land. Among some county councillors in agricultural districts you will hear two things said. You will hear it said that the people who have been settled on the land are failing. According to this Report that is not the case. It is said that the number of men who had been provided with holdings up to 15th January, 1923, and who had left for financial reasons and might therefore be regarded as failures was 1,226 or 6.5 per cent. The estimate had been made that approximately 10 to 12 per cent. of the
men settled on the land since the Armistice, had left their holding owing to failure up to 31st December, 1924. That is just the sort of subject upon which we require reliable information, because one of the powerful weapons which is used by those who object to small holdings is the statement that the people who have been settled on the land since the War have been failures.
Another point which is made by similar people is that there is no demand for small holdings. Is that true? That is a question on which we require information. According to a reply which the Minister gave on 8th July there were on 31st March this year 14,847 unsatisfied demands for small holdings in England and Wales, and of these 612 had been approved, but have not yet been provided with holdings, and 8,234 were awaiting interviews or standing over. That again is a matter where reliable information is required in order to deal with the complaints which one constantly hears that rates are being wasted by providing land for small holdings for which there is really no demand. That is only one illustration of the many questions upon which we really are entitled to have information of a perfectly reliable character. Mr. Gavin, in the communication to the "Morning Post" to which I have referred, makes out that those who demand a survey of this character are wanting a return from the Government of people who, in the opinion of inspectors, are good farmers and people who are bad farmers, or a return of the qualifications of a good farmer and a bad farmer. I can assure the Minister that he need not be frightened on that account, because nothing is further from our minds than that. We want a return to show how every acre of land is being cultivated, and how many acres of land which are not at the moment being cultivated can be cultivated. I have seen it stated that there are over one million acres in this country which could be reclaimed. I do not know whether that is true, but it is another illustration of the difficulties and of the importance of this problem.
There is another important consideration. For some reason or other, whenever any reference is made to the land programme, some people suspect that those who mention it are engaged in some tremendous fight against what is called an ancient institution in this
country. I have never been able to find out what that institution is, but, however that may be, the trouble is that we are so busy criticising each other's policies, and the Government are so apparently impressed by the Report which has recently been produced by a Committee set up under the auspices of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), that they have been unable to declare their own policy, and they content themselves with criticising ours. It is said that when the Judges of the High Court, many years ago, were drafting a loyal Address to present to Queen Victoria, one of them suggested that the best way of starting would be with the phrase: "Conscious as we are of our own infirmities," but as an amendment the suggestion was made that the phrase should read: "Conscious as we are of each other's infirmities." That seems to be the trouble at the present time with the Government in regard to an agricultural policy. They claim to be so conscious of the infirmities of my right hon. Friend's proposals, that they seem to be afraid of producing their own.

Sir HARRY HOPE: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison), who introduced this discussion, brought forward many arguments in favour of a, survey to be taken of the land, and he said that, if we had a survey, we would then know what sort of legislation we ought to adopt in order to bring about a better state of affairs. While he said that, what do we see? We see that his leader—I suppose he is his leader—has brought forward-a cut-and-dried programme for altering and renewing our whole system of agriculture, without waiting in any way to get the survey and to hear what the survey could tell us. Then the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) also spoke in favour of a survey being made of our land, but without waiting to hear what the survey brought forth, he also commenced elaborating his cure for the evils which exist, in the shape of an extension of Crown lands. I am not against a survey being taken of our land. I quite agree that, if we had it, we might be able to find out some weak spots which could be improved on. I quite believe that we might be able to make improvements,
because it is a very good thing indeed that cannot be improved on at any time, but I think it is a totally wrong impression to form that the agriculture of this country is in a decadent condition.
The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has, in previous Debates in this House, told us that the numbers of livestock per hundred acres in this country are very much less than they are in Denmark, Holland, Belgium, and some other Continental countries, but he totally ignored the fact that those countries which he compared with ours are all flat and level countries, having no ranges of mountains or hills such as we have in England, Scotland, and Wales. Therefore, any arguments bringing forward the total numbers of stock per hundred acres in a comparison between this country and those Continental countries is a totally inaccurate method of comparison. The right hon. Gentleman and some of his friends have told us that British agriculture is in a hopelessly decadent condition. I have had some connection with agriculture in Scotland, and I. can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if ever he would come to Scotland, I could show him many parts of it where I do not think any improvement could be made. If you go to the stock-rearing parts throughout Berwickshire, Roxburghshire, and the South of Scotland. and again up in the North of Scotland. r if you go to the arable districts in the Lothians or in the County of Forfar, which I have the honour to represent, I say that to characterise these districts as carrying on the industry in a decadent fashion is very far removed from the truth.
The industry in this country is not in anything like the bad way described by hon. and right hen. Members opposite. I know some districts of England. I have made it my business to know parts of England, and I have seen, in a county such as Lincolnshire, land farmed to the very highest possible standard of efficiency. I have seen potatoes produced in South Lincolnshire, in the Spalding district, which my hon. Friend the Member for Holland-with-Boston (Mr. Dean) represents, which I do not think you could find improved upon in any country in the world. Therefore, to characterise this whole industry as being in a decadent, moribund condition is quite inaccurate. I have no doubt
there are plenty of bad farmers, the same as there are inefficient men in every other line of work, but I think the general standard of farming has improved very much in the last 30 years. The improved production of fertilisers has been taken advantage of, and the general quantity of crops produced has thereby been enormously improved. Undoubtedly, the land, especially in England, could be very much improved by the use of wild white clover, along with phosphates and potassic fertilisers, but yet there is an improvement going on. A survey might, perhaps, do good, but, after all, who is going to make your survey? I suppose you are going to employ a great number of people, probably young men, who have been to an agricultural college and think they know everything about it, but suppose you bring in a great horde of inspectors going through the districts, and they make reports and classify their knowledge under various heads. After all, it will mean a lot of work and a great deal of information, but how many people will ever read it?
I quite agree that there may be some good come out of the movement, but think this House does not need to be made aware of the idea that merely because we make a survey of our land we arc not going to bring about a new state of perfection in British agriculture. The prosperity and the efficiency of British agriculture will always rest on the individual enterprise and skill of the man who is conducting the business, and as long as our cultivators are actuated by skill and by the incentive to improve their methods, and if they have got an opportunity of taking advantage of the scientific methods which research work can give to them, I have no fear at all that our standard of agriculture will not be maintained. The right hon. Member for North Norfolk asked what the Government have done to improve agriculture. It would not be in order for me to say all that might be done to improve agriculture, but when we look around and sec foreign produce being sold every day in this country as being of home origin, it is clear that there is an impediment put in the way of the home producer which is grossly unfair, and for which we suffer at the present time. I am sure that if our agriculture were looked at, not with party spectacles at all, but in a practical
manner, with the desire to help the industry and to remove old-fashioned obstacles which are allowed to stand in its way, this industry of agriculture would be, as it can be, a great source of strength to the nation as a whole.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: May I be allowed to remind the House that the first person in these realms to realise the necessity for an agricultural census was a Scotsman? Sir John Sinclair, whose great-grandson takes such an interest in agriculture, and who contributes to our Debates to-day, was the first man to realise the necessity of an agricultural census, and he had compiled, very largely through his own efforts, what is known as "A Statistical Account of Scotland." That was in 1790, and we have now arrived at 1926, and I venture to suggest that, having regard to the changing conditions of the day and to the way in which the land of our country is changing hands, the time is more than ripe for us to take stock again, and have a thorough census of the whole of the agricultural land. The speech of the hon. Member for Forfar (Sir H. Hope) was a very strong argument for the necessity of such a census. He agreed that it would be a desirable thing that we should have a census, but then he went on to say that some people state that agriculture is in a decayed state, and proceed to propound their nostrums, whereas, he said, in parts of Scotland agriculture was by no means, as we all know, in a decayed state.
That is just what we want to know. We want to know where the facts lie and whether or not people who say that agriculture is in a decadent state are
justified, and we cannot have these facts without getting a survey. I am afraid we are under a disadvantage in not yet having before us fully the results of the very important survey that is being made, under the auspices of the Secretary of State for Scotland, by the Board of Agriculture in the County of Kincardine is a small county lying along the East Coast of Scotland between Aberdeen and Forfar. It has good soil and bad soil, and good farms and bad farms, and the survey which was made there brought that out very clearly. I have in my hand the Journal of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, which contains, in the number for July, a short summary
of what the survey effected in that county, and if I may be allowed to do so I should like shortly to refer to one or two of the principal points which that summary brings out. The summary says that during the winter of 1925–26 it was decided to hold this survey
5.0 P.M.
with the primary object of finding out what use was being made of all land not accounted for by the agricultural returns.
What the survey found out was most remarkable—
it was then discovered that the discrepancy between the total area shown in the agricultural returns and that in the Ordnance Survey of the county was due almost entirely to inaccuracies, many of them fairly large, made by occupiers in estimating the extent of their mountain and heath land used for graving.
If hon. Members will consider for a moment, they will see what very serious import lies behind those word Statistics based upon facts which were so thoroughly inaccurate can only be misleading, and it is only by means of such a survey as has been held in Kincardine that we can get at the right facts to ascertain to what purposes the land in the counties is being used, and not only that, but whether it is being put to the best use.
While that survey was going on four typical parishes in the county were selected for a more detailed survey. The object of that was twofold—
It was intended primarily to describe the present state of agriculture in these parishes. Its ultimate object was to throw into prominence the importance of all factors connected with the proper management of the soils, crops, and stocks of the farms examined.
That is exactly what we want to get at, and it is those facts which will be of such enormous advantage to the agriculture of this country. The summary goes on to say that the surveyors found that there were tremendous variations between the results obtained in farms in neighbouring parishes where the sail was good and where the soil was bad. They go on to point out their conclusions that these variations were largely due either to the system of management which followed on the farms or the skill in the management of the farms.
As the hon. Member for Forfar (Sir H. Hope) has just said, the success of farming depends very largely on the
farmer himself. That must always be so, but in spite of that you may have a very good farmer following a system which is not the best in the management of his farm, and a survey could show where the plan is wrong and how a different system of rotation could give a greater production from that farm. The good farmer will get the benefit of such a survey, and will be able to obtain a greater profit through his good farming than he did before. I will only touch very lightly on one or two of the main points in the survey, but I want the House to notice that these facts which have been brought out by this survey are not only vital to any consideration of the future of agriculture, and to the whole of the country, but that they are also of the greatest importance to those who are engaged in farming at the present time. The surveyors go through all the various factors of good and bad management of the farms—the whole system of working expenses, how the different crops improve on different lands, how sheep-breeding can be made an advantage, the management of stock, the question of horse-breeding, and so on. There is a remark which I would like to emphasise, where the surveyors speak of the rotations adopted. They say:
Cereal growing is often said to be a non-paying concern in these days. But this statement is loose and misleading. Despite low prices and high costs of production, cereal growing may still be profitable, provided the yields per acre are sufficiently high.… On the more fertile farms close-cropping and high labour costs were frequently associated with very good results.
So there again we come to the question of whether agriculture is in a bad state or not, and the surveyors point out over and over again that, where farming does not pay, it is very often due to the want of management on the farm. They point out that it is a question of skill, a question of the want of proper management, or of the want of proper skill in the management, that farms can be shown to give much better profits by a different system of rotation or by giving more attention to poultry and pigs and to the side-lines of agriculture. I am very glad to see that they think that better profits can be obtained by co-operation, and they show that if the farmer is a member of a co-operative society, he will get the best advantage, riot only in buying, but in selling. They point out that a lot of
time is wasted by the farmer at the market. The farmer's time is worth so much, and yet he will go and waste days in the market haggling over a matter of a shilling or two. The question of buildings is not enlarged upon in this summary. I do not know how far it is dealt with in the main Report, but the whole question of buildings which my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir R. Hutchison) referred to in opening this Debate is one of the utmost importance to the whole of the farming system. It is necessary that the buildings should be suitable for working the industry, for housing the people, and for all the work on the farms.
A very important paragraph in this summary is the last one, the General Conclusions, where the surveyors say that the land that they surveyed was generally clean, dry, well managed—as regards organisation of labour—and in very good condition. They go on to say that, in spite of this, the balance sheets, after interest on capital and allowances are deducted, are frequently on the wrong side. There are low prices for what the farmer has to sell and high working expenses, but they do not explain why so many farmers are able to show balances on the right side. It is not all a gloomy outlook on agriculture, and if we could get before us the facts which a detailed survey would give, the bright lines would become very much brighter and stronger. It has been made plain that skill, or lack of skill, in the management of crops and prospects accounted for a wide difference in the results. Anything that we can do to make good the deficiencies of skill, either in agricultural education or by bringing the facts to the notice of particular farmers so that they can make use of them, are all to the good of this great basic industry. I do urge most strongly upon the Minister of Agriculture that he should not merely say that a census might be useful or would be desirable, but he should say how necessary it is for agriculture that it should be done, and we have seen it can be done, for Scotland has shown us the way.

Mr. DEAN: I have listened with considerable interest to this Debate. The hon. Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) who opened this Debate re-
ferred as the principal means of relief for agriculture to the necessity for having a survey of the country. The hon. and gallant Member I am glad to say, has taken much interest in English agriculture. Re has, I think, concentrated his energy more particularly on the poorer land of this country than he has on the better land, and I notice that he said in the first instance the enormous amount of land that we had in this country that was water-logged. I quite agree with him. Nobody knows it better than myself. I have also heard it said that the agriculturist and the owner of land in this country were behind the times, and that they did not make the best use of their land for the growing of cereals. But I would like to point out that so far from their being out of date and behind the times they are very much up to date, much as they would like to cultivate the land, and much as they would like to spend money upon it in order to produce food for the people, they know they cannot do so unless they spend more capital upon the land than they can get out of it, with the present prices and the present competition.
We have also heard that we have in this country nearly a million acres of land for reclamation. I have had an opportunity of seeing land in this country that might be reclaimed, and that might grow very high modern crops. I have the honour to represent a division where there is a great deal of that land—on the Wash, in Lincolnshire. I was viewing it only the other day, and I know it might be reclained, but in conversation with business men I found out that the reclamation of that land would not pay capital expenditure. We have heard a great deal about the buildings on our poorer land not being efficient and in bad repair, but I would like to remind those hon. Gentlemen who take up that attitude that the land on which those buildings stand has for some years, in many cases, been cultivated at a loss. I do not mind whether you have private ownership or State ownership; you are not going to ask the private owner to invest his capital in an industry in which he is not going to get interest, and I do not believe that the State should be asked to invest its capital if no return is to be forthcoming. That to my mind is the situation.
Now I would like to turn to a rather brighter side. I have been speaking of the poorer land, but with regard to the better land of this country that can still he cultivated at a profit, and you can still pay a decent wage to your worker, but that is only a comparatively small proportion of the whole of the land of this country. If you are going to keep the poorer land in cultivation, as it is our great hope that we may do, then you will have to do something by way of relief from rates and taxes and other expenditure in order that that land may be kept in cultivation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) referred to the Crown lands of this country, and to the enormous advantage of the Crown lands being managed by the State. I do not want in any way to depreciate Crown land owners, but I would like to say that they are not superior to the bulk of private land owners of this country. I will give a concrete reason for making that statement. There is a very large acreage of Crown land where I happen to be chairman of the drainage authority of that particular district, and I may say that the central drainage is in perfect order. In this district, where you have the different interior drainage draining into the main drain, nearly all the private owners of land have put their hands in their pockets and produced the money in order to put down artificial pumps to drain the land. The Crown have not helped to put in artificial pumps to drain their tenants' land. In this particular district, which is a fairly large one, the Crown, as the owners of land in that particular district, are behind the private owners. It is not because they do not know about it, because they have been told from time to time, not only by people connected with the Drainage Trust, but also by their own tenants, that people have put down private pumps in order to drain their private lands, whereas the Crown drainage have only the natural drainage to rely upon. The pumps from other fens help to flood those lands where there is no pump, because the artificial pumping prevents the natural drainage.

Mr. BUXTON: Will the hon. Gentleman give the name of the place where the Crown is negligent?

Mr. DEAN: I did not go as far as to say it was negligent, but my right hon. Friend seems to think it is negligent. It is the Black Sluice district of Lincolnshire—the drainage of the parishes of Billingborough, Swaton and others. Where you have something like 20 interior drainage systems, and only about six or seven that have not got private pumps, and in those cases—the Crown tenants—have not in one single instance got any artificial drainage for their land, so far as I am aware. I really give this as an instance to show that you arc not going to get, under public management, anything better than you get under private ownership. You have had in the past, if I mistake not, landlords generally who have taken an interest in their estates, and who know something of the management of estate. We have heard it said that many tenant farmers are very much behind the times. Tenant farmers, in my experience, are very much abreast of the times, but they see all the difficulties they have in conducting that industry to make it profitable. Something has been said—and I believe this Debate started principally with regard to a survey—tha a survey was going to cure all our ills, or, at least, a great many of them. That rather reminds me of the Irish priest who was asked to bless the crops. He went round from crop to crop, and cast a blessing upon each, in order that all might he well. Last of all he came to a crop which was looking rather sickly, and said, "I am sorry, but it is no good my giving my blessing to that: that crop requires muck."
The suggestion is that there should he, a survey, but a. survey will not make the land profitable. At the present time, we in England have a census of all our cereal crops, of our green crops and of our grass land and livestock. There is if I am not mistaken, a county agricultural committee for every county, with its agricultural organisers. I, myself, have hem chairman of one of these agricultural committees, and I know that during the time I was chairman of that committee, our organizer knew how the whole of the land in our county was cultivated. He knew whether it was well cultivated or badly cultivated, and we, had the report before the committee. I am quite sure that the reason why a great deal of that land was not as well
cultivated as it ought to have been, was because it did not make a return. I can point now to a considerable acreage of thin land in Lincolnshire which is very highly cultivated indeed, and I have seen the returns for the last few years where nothing has been wanting in the way of good farming It has been efficiently managed the land has been properly cultivated by men who understand their work, men who during the years before the War, and, of course, immediately after the War, were able to make a good profit upon those lands; men who have never lost money on agriculture before. But you have to see their books to-day— they do not speak lies. Their books show most distinctly, with regard to their Income Tax returns, that they are making an annual loss. I do not say the annual loss is large, but I say it is there, and until you can do something for the poorer land of this country, do not let this House, do not let the country at large, do not let our large industrial population be led away with the idea that it is the farmer's fault, that it is the landlord's, that it is neglected. It is exactly, to my mind, like the case of the coalmines. If the coal does not pay to lift, then you cannot lift it. If agricultural land generally will not pay to cultivate properly, and as it ought to be cultivated, then do not blame agriculturist, if you see that the land is not in as good a state of cultivaton as it ought to be.

Mr. RILEY: There seems to be a general consensus of opinion in favour of the Minister of Agriculture supplying us with some adequate information in the nature of a survey of agriculture.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Certainly not.

Mr. RILEY: I said that that is the general opinion. Personally, while I have no objection to the widest survey, if it is going to be useful, I venture to say that in one or two directions we have already perfectly adequate information as to the utility of the purposes which the Department can serve in the domain of agriculture. May I first express regret that, for some reason or other, hitherto the Minister has not thought fit to give anything like an annual report of what the Ministry is doing in its various fields of activity, I know that we have had some excellent special reports, such as
those on land settlement, the marketing of produce, and so on, but there seems to be nothing in the nature of a comprehensive report covering in one annual statement a general review of the work of the Ministry, and I do submit to the present Minister that he would set a good example if he would see his way to initiate a more or less comprehensive annual report, which would cover the Ministry's various fields of activity, and inform Members concisely what the Ministry is actually doing. In other Departments, such as education, that is done.
Having said that, I want to say, that, without waiting for any further survey, or any further information, there is at least one Department of the Ministry's work, namely, that which is charged with the encouragement and promotion of small holdings, about which there is already ample information to establish the success and the utility of that part of the Ministry's work. It has been said in previous Debates, and it is worth while reminding the House that, since the year 1908, something like 33,000 small holdings have been established under the 1908 Act and the Act of 1919. Under the Act of 1908, roughly, 15,000 what are called self-supporting holdings, were established before the War and since 1919, 18,000 have been established under the Land Settlement Act. I want to say, in passing, that while there is no doubt a great need for assisting small holders to market their produce, to organise, to promote co-operation, to make the most of the system of small holdings, none the less it is now beyond all question that the principle and method of small holdings has in this country already achieved a signal success. If there be any doubt about that, there is the fact that 33,000 small holdings have been created, and for the last four years approximately 28,000 more have been waiting—10,000 in Scotland and about 18,000 in England and Wales, have been waiting for the holdings not yet provided for them.
Therefore, it is clear that there is scope for a definite piece of useful work, pregnant with signal success for the country. But I want to complain, that if one looks into the accomplishments of the present Government, as a matter of fact since 1922, those accomplishments are extremely small. Two or three weeks
ago I asked the Minister the amount of land which had been acquired for small holdings, either by the Ministry or by local councils, between January, 1925, and March, 1926, a period of 15 months, and his reply was that only 670 acres had been acquired by the Ministry and only 57 new smallholders, that is 57 out of the 33,000 established under the Acts since 1909, had been established by the Ministry or by local councils since January, 1925. Although the present Government, and their predecessors in 1923, talked about being in favour of small holdings, practically nothing has been done since 1922 to create smallholders. The House ought to remember that of the 32,000 or 33,000 existing small holdings created by Statute, less than 100 have been established within the last two or three years. That is a fault which the Ministry ought to remedy. In view of the experience since 1908, they ought to go ahead courageously with the establishment of small holdings, not on the lines of occupiers purchasing their holdings, but by creating occupying tenancies.
I also asked the Minister a week or two ago how many smallholders had purchased their holdings under the 1892, 1909, and 1919 Acts. The total number of smallholders under these Acts is, roughly, 33,000, and the number who have been in the position to purchase is as follows: Under the 1892 Act, 59 holdings were purchased; under the 1908 Act, 67 holdings; under the 1919 Act, 43 holdings. That is a total of 169 out of 33,000 holdings That is a pregnant fact, showing that what people require is not to be allowed to buy, for they cannot buy, but to have occupying tenancies, so that they can employ such capital as they can command in making the land productive. In emphasising this signl success of the small holdings movement, which was scoffed at in years gone by, and regarded as a mere chimera, I would ask the House to realise what it has meant from the economic and social point f view. I put on the Order Paper to-day the following question:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture if he will give figures showing the amount of land returned as agricultural land in England and Wales that was suitable for agricultural use in the years 1870, 1880, 1890, 1900, 1914 and 1924, together with the population of England and Wales for those years, and the number of acres per 1,000 of the population.
I have not had the official reply, but by word of mouth the Minister has told me the rather singular thing that the amount of agricultural land now available is practically it was in 1870—it is 25,000,000 acres, roughly the same to-day as then. When we take into account the increase in population we find that whereas in 1870 there were 1,100 acres of agricultural land available per 1,000 of the population, to-day there are only 600 acres per 1,000 of the population That emphasises the necessity of making the most of the land, of encouraging that type of culture which gives the maximum production both from an economic and social point of view.
On that aspect of the matter a remarkable return has been issued by the Government of Denmark showing what has occurred in Denmark as the outcome of the small holdings movement. On farms of from 1 acre to 25 acres the economic yield, the product, was £22 per acre, and the amount going in wages and taxes was £14 Os. per acre. In the case of farms of from 25 acres to 50 acres the product per acre was £20 14s., and the social product, that is, the amount going in wages and in taxes, was £11 5s. In the case of farms of over 250 acres the economic product was £12 2s. per acre, as against £22 per acre on farms up to 25 acres, and the social product was only £7 Is. per acre, as against. £14 9s. Those facts emphasise the great necessity in this country, with a growing population and a limited amount of land, of making the most of the land by intensive cultivation. [An HON.: "What is the tenure in Denmark?"] As to 98 per cent., they are occupying freeholders, I admit, but in recent years, under the new laws, there have been 3,000 occupying tenancies, and the whole tendency now is to go in for occupying tenancy. Henceforth, under the new laws, there will be no further monopoly of land. It is a startling fact that these 25-acre farms in Denmark, according to the official returns of the Agricultural Department of the Danish Government, yield on the average £550 worth of produce per annum. Of that sum there goes to the family occupying the land £375, the rest being absorbed by outlay on production. If we could have a similar state of affairs in this country it would add enormously to our economic and social well-being Therefore, I would
urge the right hon. Gentleman to take his courage in both hands and go ahead with the development of small holdings. He ought not to confine himself to allowing a few individuals, or this county or that county, to take a forward step if they feel inclined to do so, but, in view of the possibility of having to find employment for a surplus mining population, to go forward with the development of group holdings on a large scale, organised by the Ministry, acting, it may be, through county councils. There we have a field in which much may be done for the betterment and the well-being of the people.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I sincerely hope the Minister will not listen for a single moment to the suggestion that a survey of agricultural land should be inflicted on this country. I remember the same suggestion being put forward a year ago. The reasons given to-day by the hon. Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) have been slightly enlarged. Last year the demand by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was based solely on the ground that land was uncultivated and that much more could be made of it, and we were to have this horde of officials sent down to examine each farm, to tell us how to cultivate our land, and to suggest that it was improperly done.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Baronet is now attributing to me something which I never suggested. To begin with, I never suggested that there should be a horde of officials, and, in the second place, it was no part of the survey that the officials were to instruct individual farmers. It was to be simply a survey and a report on the condition of agriculture in five or six typical counties, such a survey, as a matter of fact, as has already been conducted in Scotland, in the county of Kincardine, where there is no horde of officials instructing the farmers.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: The last thing in the world I wish to do is to misrepresent what the right hon. Gentleman has said. If it is to he a superficial survey of the land such as he now mentions, I fail absolutely to see the reason for it. Without a thorough examination it is quite impossible to say whether land is well
farmed or not; but I go further, and say there is no reason whatever for such an examination in this country. We had an independent examination within the last two or three years by the Agricultural Tribunal of Investigation. Three independent experts were appointed by, I believe, the late Government to examine into the condition of agriculture, and the final Report was only made in May, 1924. I will just read one paragraph, 287, of one of the Reports—
 The facts do not show that there is ground for depreciation of British agriculture as a whole. It pays wages that are high as compared with those in other European countries; the yield of the area which is under the chief crops compares favourably with that of the areas under the same crops abroad; while the actual decline of the agricultural population as tested by male persons employed has not, over the whole length of our period of reference been so startling as is often supposed or so rapid as that of other European countries. Farmers are not responsible for the natural conditions or the national policies which have affected the form of cultivation that is most profitable; subject to the conditions, the cultivation of the land in Britain cannot he described as inefficient.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Whose Report is that?

Sir H. CAUTLEY: It is the Report made by Professor MacGregor.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is the Minority Report.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: The right hon. Gentleman is not accurate, because each Report was stated by the Commissioners to be supplementary to the others, and each Commissioner was responsible for his own Report.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, that is the Report by Professor MacGregor, Professor Ashley and Professor Adams and they took very different views. I know that Professor MacGregor did not carry his colleagues with him.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: T cannot charge my memory with the exact words used.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is the Minority Report.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I would like to have read the actual words, but I know that one Report is supplementary to the other and they have to be read together, and each member was responsible for what
he signed. Here is the passage dealing with this point in the Report:
 We submit for your consideration our final Reports. We wish to say while on some matters we represent different points of view they should also be regarded largely as supplementary one to the other, each Report meeting certain aspects more fully than the others. Each member of the Tribunal is responsible, of course, only for the Report to which his signature is appended.
I differ from the right hon. Gentleman opposite when he says this is a Minority Report, because it is no such thing, and I doubt very much whether the right hon. Gentleman can quote to-day any cases in the Report of Sir William Ashley or Professor Adams contradicting the extract which I read from the Report made by Professor MacGregor. If that be so, then the whole basis of the right hon. Gentleman's case goes. We have set up in every county in England an agricultural committee. We are having the position of agriculture discussed and considered in every single county. The position of small holdings is known there and also the state of the agricultural industry. In these matters you have to get a certificate from the agricultural committee. I know the right hon. Gentleman the _member for Carnarvon Boroughs has taken a very great interest in this question in the East Riding of Yorkshire, and I am greatly interested myself in that district, but, surely, he knows the state of agriculture in East Yorkshire. At any rate the county council is aware of the state of things there. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to tell us that in the successful body of small holdings which have been set up in that county, they do not know the whole condition of agriculture in the East Riding of Yorkshire? Of course, they do. Those who understand the position in the East Riding would be the first people to decry the sending of a gentleman from Whitehall to make a cursory survey of the East Riding of Yorkshire district, because that is not what we want.
The one evil we suffer from to-day is what the coal trade is suffering from. It an economic trouble., because our expenses are greater than our returns. It does not need these gentlemen to come down and tell us that some of our farming is bad and some is good, because
we know that already. In our country districts we can easily pick out the best farmers. Do we want another Coal Report on Agriculture? Who is going to tell us our business? I want the agricultural interest to tell the Minister that the whole of this thing is eyewash, and of no use. I agree with what the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) said, but upon different grounds. I was very interested in regard to what the hon. Member said about smallholders in Denmark, and I should like to study that question a little further. In the same Report to which I have already referred, dealing with the small holdings policy in England, I find this further passage:
 Fourth, the small holdings policy. This rests on the ground of general efficiency and justice to the labourer. There is not evidence to show that sinallholclers are either more or less efficient and productive than large farmers.

Mr. RILEY: Does the hon. and learned Member contest my figures?

Sir H. CAUTLEY: The hon. Member did not tell us what was the nature of the farm to which he referred. The small holdings policy is based upon picking out the best land.

Mr. RILEY: The figures I gave were the average, and they dealt with a given size of holdings.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I am not opposed to small holdings. On the contrary, I am a strong supporter of them, not so much on agricultural grounds, but on political and social grounds. I think access to the land should he made easy. Each labourer ought to have an opportunity of acquiring a small holding, and T strongly support the small holdings policy. I strongly support the Bill put forward by the Minister of Agriculture for increasing the number of small holdings, and going further and making it possible to establish by means of State credit ownership of cottage holdings in order that a man can have three acres of land as a holding, and become the owner by paying an annual fair rent charge. What I want to point out is that small holdings are not going to cure the agricultural trouble which we suffer from to-day. The smallholder's life is one of the hardest in the country. He has to work from morning until evening and he has no standard wage. Not only this, but his wife works as hard
as he does and the children as well, and it is only by great hardships that they can make a living. Therefore small holdings must not be taken as a cure for the agricultural problem.
What we want to see is the industry put on a proper basis and on a paying basis. We want to see the agricultural labourer and the agricultural worker who works on a weekly wage having a much easier time as a smallholder. We want the land kept under the plough; that is our object. The trouble we have to face is the price. It is not a matter of intensive or light cultivation, but a question of balance sheets. I have seen a rich man come into our country districts and produce the heaviest and finest crops, and the worst of balance sheets. If be had not been a rich man, he could not go on from year to year, but because he is interested in agriculture and in good cultivation, he does not care. That, how-ever, does not cure the troubles of English
agriculture. It is, the position of the ordinary farmer we have to consider. Like any other trader, the farmer must have some return for the money which he puts into the business, and he must make a profit sufficient to support himself and his family like any other man of business. What is a survey going to do to achieve this object? Who are the surveyors going to be? There is no man at the Board of Agriculture who can take on the
job, and are we going to have some broken-down farmers appointed to make this survey? Who does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs suggest should do this survey? When the right hon. Gentleman gets his survey, what more information are we going to get than we have in one or other of the various Reports which have been issued? I am not aware of the details in regard to the survey which is going to be made. We have the Farmers' Union to protect the industry of the farmers and collect all the information they require. They piece the information together, and that is very useful. But what would be the value of the information gathered by this suggested survey? It cannot be anything that will benefit the industry. I conclude, as I began, by asking the Minister not to listen for one moment to this proposition, because, as a practical farmer, I say it cannot be of the slightest value to the industry.

Mr. FENBY: 1 am glad that even on August Bank Holiday we are having a Debate upon agriculture. There are two things I want to say in particular. We have been debating the question of whether we should have a survey of the agricultural position of this country. We have had speeches on this question from both sides of the House, but neither from the Minister of Agriculture nor from the Secretary of State for Scotland have we yet heard a single word with regard to the suggestion which has been made. That, perhaps, may come in due course. The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) has a considerable stake in the Riding to which I myself happen to be sttaked, and which my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) says contains the best agricultural land that he has seen for some considerable time. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he did not himself object to the small holdings movement, and I remember that I had the pleasure of presiding at an inquiry in regard to the taking of land by compulsion from his estate for the purpose of providing allotments. He also made the remark, which is quite true, that the Agricultural Committee, and particularly the Chairman of the Agricultural Committee, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, know everything about the agricultural conditions in the East Riding. I quite agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman up to that point, but I totally differ from him when he says that, as they have all that information, the Government do not require to have it.
There is one point that has not yet, been made, and that is that the one factor that disturbs those engaged in the agricultural industry more than any other factor with which they have to deal is that of change. They get very sudden and violent changes in the weather, which, although they may account for some profit, account for a good deal of loss to those engaged in agriculture. The agriculturist doe not know where he is from one day to another as regards the weather; and I often tell my agricultural friends that it is little use relying on the Conservative Government for any agricultural programme, because the Conservative Government seem to be just about as fickle as the weather in their
attitude towards agriculture. Let me begin with the Ministry itself. It is very significant that during the lifetime of this Government the only change that has taken place in the Government, if I remember rightly, has been in the Ministry of Agriculture. I quite agree that there were very good reasons. Heaven forbid that I should reflect in any way upon the present Viceroy of India. We were very proud of him. He was the product of the East Riding, and we thought we should get a good deal of help from him, but, unfortunately for us, he has passed on to help India instead. There has been a change at the Ministry; hut I am not going to confine myself merely to what has happened under the present Government with regard to this difficulty of stability of policy—I go further back. There may be tender spots in my own political party. We had guaranteed prices, but not for very long. They led agriculture into a kindof blind alley, and a good many people engaged in agriculture went by the board. Then we were going to have a large reconstructive programme with regard to drainage it, the agricultural areas of this country. Drainage officials were engaged, and we were going to have drainage schemes, but it was not very long before they went.
With regard to small holdings, my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) suggested that the Ministry should have something to do with the setting up of small holding colonies, but God forbid that they should ever touch small holding schemes again, in view of the exhibition we have had of a Government or a State setting up small holding colonies, not only from the point of view of money, but from the point of view of the heart-breaking experiences of the men and women who were put on these holdings. From that point of view I think it will not be the Government that will do it best, but the county authority.
My argument for the agricultural survey that is being asked for is this The reason for the changes of which I have been complaining is that one Government or Minister has looked at a section of the agricultural problem, and another Government or another Minister has come along and looked at another section of the problem, and each, from his own point
of view, has been endeavouring to do a certain thing, but they did not hang together. The successor of an innovator has often practically cut the throat of something that his predecessor thought was very useful. I think the survey would be useful for this reason, and I would say to the Minister, who, I know, is very anxious to do his best for the industry while holding his present office, that it is very little use his thinking that, during the lifetime of this Government, be it long or short, he can introduce a. complete policy for the improvement and regeneration of agriculture. It is impossible for him to do it in the time; it is a very slow-moving industry.
What I would like the Minister to do, and to have the honour of doing, if he desires to have it, is to agree with his predecessor in his own Department that the present law, as has been suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, does not give us all that we want with regard to information. We want a complete survey, and the Minister will find that it will be more useful to him and his Department than to anyone on this side of the House, because, if a Government mean to make their agricultural policy a success, whether it be a Liberal, a Conservative, or a Socialist Government, for it to be possible to have a complete policy they must have a complete survey; they must have the complete facts in their hands before they can begin to make any policy operative that will be at all likely to be successful and prosperous.
What does the agriculturist say? I remember that, when the right hon. Gentleman came into office in succession to the present Viceroy of India, a good many of my farming friends said to me: " Now, Fenby, what kind of a fellow is Guinness? " I said: " He has done very well in the office he has been holding. I do not know how much he knows about agriculture." They said: " Well, you know, there are a great many people talking about agriculture, but, unfortunately, they do not know anything about it; we hope he is not one of them." I tried to give them a very good impression in regard to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am anxious to continue the testimony I paid
to him on his appointment, but he can only justify that by the action he will take. He has taken action with regard to small holdings. He is going a
certain way, but, as I pointed out the other day, he is only going a very little way. It is like an infant travelling in the night. We have had experience, which has been testified to on both sides of the House, and particularly by the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead, that the success of small holdings justifies a large Measure, and not a small one, for the extension of small holdings. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is going such a little way. The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead said that the agricultural committees have the facts in their own particular areas, but, if only the right hon. Gentleman had them, he would be in a much better position. I do not mean the mere report of a political economist or some faddist or other. We want the facts. Someone suggested that the Minister might get them in the same way that the Secretary of State for Scotland gets his facts, but I suggest a much more ready source of information. If the right hon. Gentleman will come down to the East Riding of Yorkshire, he will soon be put in possession of a great many facts that will be very useful to the Ministry but we want to go further than that.
What is the problem? It is really a matter of the condition of the river hank. That is another very important matter. Take one of the most extensively flooded areas I know in this country. What is the trouble? Is it that there is no money to drain it? No. Is it that people are not anxious to have it improved? That is not altogether the point. The difficulty is this. You have the Ouse running eastward. You have the Derwent, a smaller river, running westward, and one meets the other. The stronger water coming down the Ouse running eastward backs all the water up the Derwent that wants to run westward, and you get hundreds if not thousands of acres of good land flooded simply because the river, instead of running into the Ouse, wants turning the other way. [Laughter.]It is not such a difficult thing to do as some hon. Members opposite would suggest. All you have to accomplish—and it would provide a very ready means of absorbing a little unemployed labour in that area—is simply to cut through a neck of about a mile and a-half in width and you would soon
alter the Derwent, from running westward, into running in the same direction as the Ouse. The two would join a mile and a-half lower down and you would save thousands of acres from being overflowed, sometimes for six months in the year. If the authorities had these things put before them, you would very soon find that the agriculture problem was not so difficult of accomplishment as they evidently think it at the moment.
I am anxious that the agricultural policy of the country should partake a little less of a political character and a little more of a continuous character, that there should be certain broad lines of agricultural policy laid down, and that it should be the business of each successive Government, whatever its party colour or its political principles, to carry the policy out in little bits. That would be a great advantage to the agricultural community and to the country as a whole. Something has been said on the success of small holdings. We have been told of the very large number of people who are still anxious to be smallholders. But that takes no account whatever of the very large number of people who are not applying because they are so disgusted with the large number who have applied and the small opportunities they have had of being put upon the land. If you could only get the demand clarified you need not fear at all. Some people have the idea that land for small holdings would be very difficult to get. Since the Small Holdings Bill of the right hon. Gentleman was introduced the authority with which I am associated has had 1,500 acres offered in one lot and between three and four hundred acres offered in another My regret about the Government's small holdings policy is this. We have been waiting for it for a very long time. We had a White Paper, but we got no Bill. Now the Bill has come at the tail end of the Session, and we are not going to have anything finished before the end of the year, if we get it then. The Minister should begin at once, and begin at the right end. He should begin with an agricultural survey and get at the facts. Then let him sketch out a broad policy, which may be a policy not only for the present Government but for all successive Governments to complete and carry on as they come in their turn.

Major PRICE: There are one or two facts which have emerged from the Debate so far, but the principal fact that has not emerged is what sort of survey is required. The survey that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) wants is to pick out two or three typical counties and take a survey the same as the Secretary of State for Scotland obtained in one County, and deduce certain agricultural facts from it. I do not know whether that would commend itself to the hon. Member who proposed it. If so, I do not think, if such a survey be made, it will be of the slightest value to agriculture as a whole. We have in every county an agricultural committee and agricultural organiser and an agricultural staff. Each county can make its report, as it does make its report, to the Ministry of Agriculture and from it can be gauged with accuracy the condition of agriculture in each county. All the information that any survey will give is already at hand and it only requires to be used.
There are many reasons, which vary with every county, why agriculture is not flourishing. One party has a remedy. It was suggested, I think on Saturday, in the agricultural county of Surrey by the Leader of the Opposition, that he only had one remedy for agricultural depression, and that was nationalisation of the land. Whatever his supporters may suggest, it is certain that if they are going to put forward any other remedy it has not got the support of their Leader. Now we have a request for this survey in order that an agricultural policy shall be based upon it. The Leader of the Liberal party has already adumbrated his agricultural policy. He has laid it down in the Green Book and in the revised edition. We know that his solution is small tenancy—that there shall he created a whole host of small tenancies under the guidance of certain councils apportioned in the different counties. We have had that backed up by a Member of the Labour party, who told us of the great and flourishing state of agriculture in Denmark. Undoubtedly agriculture is flourishing in Denmark, and I think a great deal of it is due to the spirit of co-operation, but tenancy has nothing whatever to do with it because the tenancy is 99 per
cent. small ownership, with which they will have nothing to do either in the Liberal party or the Labour party, and for which we are the only champions.
The question of co-operative marketing is a very serious one, and I think the Ministry of Agriculture could take some steps by propaganda to try to bring about a feeling in favour of co-operative marketing in the minds of the farmers. Co-operative buying is a simple proposition, but co-operative marketing is entirely different and infinitely more troublesome to carry out. The few attempts which have been made in the country districts have generally resulted in disaster to those who made them, and in ruin, in my part of West Wales, to the farmers who gave guarantees, relying on the Government of the day helping them through. But, undoubtedly, cooperative marketing with small holdings is an absolute essential if you are going to make a small holdings scheme a success. One of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), and who agreed with hon. Members opposite that small holdings were a signal success, must, I think, be based either upon a misunderstanding of what is a signal success or on a misunderstanding of small holdings. If it be a signal success from the point of view of putting people on the land, much of the criticism which they have given us is baseless. If it he a signal success from the economic point of view, I only ask them to turn to the accounts and to realise the amount of loss small holdings have caused the country up to date. I do not want to labour the point very much, but we have in my own county selected our tenants with the greatest care. They are all doing well, but the amount of loss the country has suffered is just about equal to the amount of rent we get.

Mr. RILEY: Does the hon. Member draw a distinction between the Acts of 190S and 1919?

Major PRICE: I am dealing with the small holdings belonging to the county as a whole.

Mr. FENBY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman distinguish between the Acts of 199c3 and 1919, and is it not a fact that the terms of the Act of 1948 pre-
vented any county losing a single penny upon any of the small holdings they purchased?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is inviting the hon. and gallant Gentleman into the dangerous path of discussing legislation, which would be out of order.

Mr. FENBY: If you will forgive me, Sir, a statement was made, and I should not like it to go unchallenged.

Major PRICE: I did not suggest that the loss had fallen upon the county. I suggested that there had been a loss upon the scheme, and it does not matter whether it falls upon the county or the country. If the loss be there, it is an uneconomic matter and one which should not be encouraged.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is it not due, in the main, to changes in policy?

Major PRICE:: It is due to the fact that when you create small holdings you have to equip them. The cost of equipment of a small holding is very nearly as much as the value of the land itself, and you therefore have to treble the rent in order to get a return. In our county we have had no failures. There has been no return of land in the hands of the county' council. The loss, taken as a whole, on the small holdings estate in the county of Pembroke is very nearly 100 per cent. The rent roll is about £5,000 and the loss is about £5,000.

Mr. FENBY: Is not the loss met out of the £20,000,000 set aside by the Act of 1919 for the settlement of ex-servicemen upon the land and not by the county council?

Major PRICE: I do not think that interruption has any relevancy. Whether the loss falls upon one body or another., it comes either out of the taxpayer or the ratepayer.

Mr. RILEY: It is a war charge.

Major PRICE: If it be a charge it is a loss. When we turn from small holdings as they are administered by the county council and look at small holdings as administered by the Government, the loss is a startling one. I have here the figures for one farm settlement for eight years. There is loss after loss, amounting on the working account to £28,829
and on the Treasury account to £57,868. There you have a heavy loss on farms carried out under State control, with the whole backing of State machinery and State knowledge. Now we are asked that there shall be another return, a return which is in the hands of every county council to-day, and a return which can only be used in the ultimate end by the county councils themselves. The knowledge is there and can he applied. Undoubtedly small holdings are of the greatest value. We wish to encourage them in every possible way, and we wish to continue the benefit to agriculture by the continuity in policy which has been suggested by hon. Members opposite. When this Government came into power they asked for the right to create such a policy from those engaged in agriculture. They asked the farm labourer. How were they met by him and the Labour party? ".Do not have anything to do with it." They asked the Farmers' Union. They were not at all keen on the job. They asked the landowner, and he was the only one who was in favour of it. But the result was that you could not get agreement amongst the parties themselves for a definite policy, and I am certain I am voicing the opinion of every agriculturist when I say, until such time as we get agreement, Heaven help us from State interference.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I rise chiefly to offer, from my own knowledge, one reason why there should be such a survey as is asked for. In the town in which I live and have been brought up there are three rivers converging. They have been silted up in the course of time by workings from coal pits, and now every year, sometimes eight times in the year, all the land over about 14 miles is flooded. It is not only in one county but in three counties. It is not land held by one landowner. It is held by 50 or 60 owners. It is not one man's job to move the silt out of the river. If one man did it it would not matter. His land in turn would be flooded by the overflow from other people's land. Unless we can get a survey, unless we can get to know accurately what changes are required to give us power to deal with a situation of that kind, we are faced with the fact that about 14 miles of splendid arable land is going out of cultivation and going back to waste. It is not only that, the roads are flooded away every year, and
I make bold to say, though I cannot get the figures from the Minister of Transport—and I know hon. Members opposite have endeavoured to get them too—that the cost to the State during the past eight years in reconditioning the roads has been far more than would have totally purchased the whole of the land in question. There is a case where a survey is absolutely essential. It is not a party matter. Hon. Members opposite have asked the Minister to give us something time and again. We have written to the Board of Agriculture, and we have raised it in the House. Unless we can get a survey we are helpless. That is one illustration of the vital necessity of a survey. The hon. Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) said there was no argument for a survey because of any reduction in the agricultural population.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Any great reduction.

Mr. JOHNSTON: During the last 17 years, and these figures are official, there has been a reduction of 30 per cent. in the number of adult males engaged in agriculture in Scotland. There is no other country in Europe that can show such a terrific decline during that period—30 per cent. or one-third of the total agricultural population wiped out.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: It is pretty nearly the same in this country.

Mr. JOHNSTON: It is nothing like so bad. if it can be proven that 30 per cent. or one-third of the agricultural population have disappeared from the land during a period of 17 years, surely that fact alone warrants a survey, and warrants it with the united backing of every party in this House. What the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Price) said about co-operation was correct. if we are to give the smallholders a chance, we must take every possible step to secure a market for their produce at a decent price, and we cannot do that if we allow the smallholders to fend for themselves under the most severe handicap and the greatest difficulty. Here, again,' there is an illustration available of what we want. The Secretary of State for Scotland has in his possession a Report, which he will issue to any hon. Member who demands it, but for
some reason he will not publish it. It is a report of agricultural co-operation in the Orkney Islands, and it is most remarkable. It was started almost haphazardly, at the instance of one private
landowner. What has been the result l Here in the Orkneys, separated from the mainland by wild and stormy seas, and with every possible difficulty in the way of transport, purchase and sale, these people, by virtue of agricultural cooperation—they have set up co-operative societies to dispose of their poultry and produce in the Scottish markets of Leith and Edinburgh—are now getting 4d. more per dozen for their eggs than the individualist producer near to Edinburgh, on the mainland.

Major PRICE: I think the reason probably why Orkney is getting this advantage is that there is not the haggler at the door there.

Sir R. HAMILTON: There are plenty of hagglers there. It is because the Orkney people back up their co-operative societies that they are able to carry through their business.

Major PRICE: The Orkneys are so remote that I thought the haggler would not be there.

Mr. JOHNSTON: There is not any place where there were more hagglers, and it is because of the hagglers that the agricultural co-operative societies were started there. Note the identity of the hagglers. They are the private adventurers under the individualist system, which the hon. Members opposite are always hoping for. The hagglers went round the islands with old suits of clothes, pairs of boots, chests of tea or pounds of tea, exchanging these commodities for the eggs. The producers were swindled both ways. Because of these hagglers, because of these private adventurers, whom hon. Members opposite are always proud to support—the report in the possession of the Secretary of State for Scotland shows it—they only got 4d a dozen for their eggs, but under the agricultural co-operation system the price of eggs rose to is. 6d, a dozen. Why should not we have a survey? Why should we not get to know all the facts? The more knowledge we have the better position we shall be in to use our privileges and power in this House to bring
about a satisfactory change in our agricultural conditions. For the life of me, I cannot understand why so many hon. Members opposite should for one reason or another try to prevent the Secretary of State for Scotland continuing the work he is doing in getting his agricultural survey, or to prevent the Minister of Agriculture in England proceeding on the same lines.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): This is not the first Debate, by any means, which has taken place on the subject of agricultural statistics and the necessity for a census of agricultural production, in the last 18 months. This subject is becoming something in the nature of an August bank holiday topic. The House devoted considerable attention to it in the Debate which took place on the 3rd August. last year. I had hoped to hear the opinions of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) before I spoke. He has taken a very leading part in the previous Debates, and he asked for this opportunity for debate, and. I think it would have been much more helpful if I had had his considered opinion as to what ought to be done in the way of a census, before I attempted to deal with what has been said.
The proposals made this afternoon have grown, in comparison with the proposals made last year. The proposals last year were much more modest. We have been told by the hon. and gallant. Member for Montrose Burghs. (Sir R. Hutchison) and the hon. Member for the Welsh University (Mr. E. Evans) what that section of Liberal opinion would like to see included. Some of those subjects are already covered by the measures which we are taking in connection with the census of agricultural production, and by the work of the Oxford Institute for Research into agricultural economics. For instance, the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose Burghs said that he wanted information as to how the land was used. We give very complete statistics on that subject in the first part of our annual agricultural statistics. We have been asked this afternoon for a drainage survey. We have already carried out what we consider is a sufficiently detailed survey, with the help of the local authorities, of the land in need of drainage, to enable us to form a
policy. I have on a previous occasion given figures of the land which is waterlogged and the smaller amount of land which can be improved by drainage operations.
We have been told, I think by the same hon. Member, that it is necessary to have evidence as to the kinds of farming which pay in different districts, and on different types of farms. That is being covered by the very exhaustive inquiry, covering 1,500 farms, of which I will give further details, which is being carried out by the Oxford Institute. We have been told by several speakers that we ought to have a survey of land which needs lime. That is not a matter which can he dealt with by a. casual inspection.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The "Morning Post " said it could.

Mr. GUINNESS: Perhaps the "Morning Post " may not have realised the machinery which already exists for advising farmers as to the benefit which they can expect by the addition of lime. We have a staff of agricultural advisers attached to each of the big agricultural colleges and university departments of agriculture—something over 50 altogether. Besides that, there are the agricultural organisers, appointed in the counties. These staffs are in constant touch with the farmers, testing their soils and advising them as to the treatment to adopt. If hon. Members will go to any of the various agricultural institutes such as Rothamsted they will see the very ingenious and fool-proof methods which have been worked out, so that by simple chemical tests the farmer is enabled to learn for himself by taking a small sample of soil front every field or from every part of a field, what areas in his farm are in need of this and other methods of soil improvement. We believe that this matter can he dealt with far better by these methods, and by propaganda among the individual farmers, than by a widespread census, which really would not give the information or furnish the means of helping the farmer to put things right.
We have been told that we ought to have a census to show what land is available for small holdings. I think the hon. Member for the Welsh University raised that point. I am absolutely puzzled AS to what is meant by that statement.
There clearly is no land available at the moment for small holdings, because small holdings naturally need the best land, and the best land is practically in ail cases in agricultural occupation. I do not see that a census of the land would be any help in that direction. The qualities of the land are fully known to the local authorities who would responsible for acquiring land for small holdings. That is not a subject which can be dealt with sufficiently by any method of wide inspection. I was glad to note that attention is being devoted to other departments. We have been told that we ought to have a census of transportation. We were also urged to institute inquiry into educational facilities.
Coming to the economic side, the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose Boroughs, who has a great knowledge, as I know, of certain classes of cereals, said that we ought to set up machinery apparently for tracing out the transactions in wheat, barley and potatoes. That is a very large measure, and I do not imagine that any section of the community concerned would welcome the control or the form of interference which would be involved by that investigation. I do not in any way complain of the desire of hon. Members in various parts of the House for the maximum of information, but we have to remember that information costs money, and we are bound to see whether we are going to get an adequate return. At the present time, we are spending on our annual agricultural returns £32,600. On the census of production, the agricultural section, we are spending £13,600. The Oxford Institute for Research into Agricultural Economics receives a grant of £6,000. Should we be justified in adding to this very considerable expenditure, in these times of financial difficulty, the £100,000 or £200,000 which would certainly be necessary for the meticulous inspection of the land which has been suggested?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to tell us what information he hopes to get under the census of production, and also from the Oxford experiments.

Mr. GUINNESS: Certainly I will do my best. It is a little difficult to
describe statistics in a speech and more difficult to do so in a form that is readily understood. Let me deal a little more with the objects which hon. Members have in asking for this census. What they hope for is some report as to the quality of cultivation. I have not heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs develop his views this afternoon, but last year he said:
 The first thing to find out is whether, in the judgment of those who investigate the matter for the Ministry of Agriculture, it is true that a better economic use could be made of the land of those districts and more employment furnished.
That is another form of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has so widely made—
 My second question would be as to the instances where, by improved cultivation, land has increased largely its yield, and employment had been increased. That is the real test. " — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1925; cols. 1012-13, Vol. 187.]
The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who have spoken clearly want something very different from the usual statistical returns which we furnish. They want not well-founded information, but opinions as to the possibility of increased production. I suggest that any such opinions would be misleading and valueless unless based on the economic factor of prices. That must be the dominating consideration in agriculture, whether it is run by the State, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk North (Mr. Buxton), or whether it continues in the hands of private enterprise. Information as to the possibility of increased production as the result of inspection by experts would only be conclusive if based upon costs. That would mean the right of access to farms and books, and I am sure it would be regarded as a very inquisitorial inquiry by those who would come under its operation. Already I get a great many letters from people who are indignant as to our curiosity and who suggest, most unjustly, that our existing returns, which I think are well thought out and necessary, have been suggested to us by civil servants who want to make jobs for themselves and their friends. I can imagine what my correspondents would say if we went further and came to Parliament, as we should have to, for compulsory powers to enter into farms in order to examine their business for those
details on which alone you can make a report as to the possibility of increased production really valuable.
There is no industry in this or in any other country which has been more thoroughly examined than agriculture in the last few years. During the War, we had Lord Selborne's Committee on Agricultural Policy. Then we had the Linlithgow Committee, which carried out a painstaking and most useful research into prices of produce which we are now occupied in carrying into effect in, various directions. Then, at the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, we appointed the Agricultural Tribunal. The right hon. Gentleman occasionally quotes carefully selected passages from the Report of that Tribunal, but he has never tackled what they themselves point out is the fundamental issue—namely, that the maintenance or an increase of the arable area of this country depends on the willingness of the nation to pay for it, whether by import duties, by subsidies or a guaranteed price. I do not forget that the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the policy of the Corn Production Act, but, unfortunately, in addition to being the author of that policy, he was afterwards its assassin. The facts of the situation are really not in dispute. There is a dispute as to the conclusions which can be drawn from the published figures and as to the remedy which should be applied. But here again there is no lack of literature. First in the field we have the right hon. Gentleman's Green Book; next to it in point of bulk is the Red Book, which we expect shortly from right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and last in point of bulk, but first, I hope, in point of utility, is the White Paper of the present Government.
I fully recognise that the country is entitled to be supplied regularly with the most up-to-date and comprehensive information that is possible. The annual statistics which have been published are admitted to be as accurate as those of any other country. I have looked this morning at those in America to which the hon. Member opposite referred, and they really do not go any further than the ground we are covering and shall cover by the special inquiries which are now taking place. The first new factor in statistics which will be
valuable will be
the report based on the agricultural section of the census of production. I hope it will be published before the end of the year. It will give the information necessary to ascertain the aggregate output completely and accurately, it will furnish information as to the growth of production, of crops and livestock, the gross output of products sold off the land, and, what necessarily must be more in the nature of an estimate, the net output in terms of value, representing the balances which are secured, and available for rent, rates and taxes, wages and profits. Information will be included as to the labour employed, and estimates will be given as to the capital invested.
In recent Debates there has been a good deal of comment as to the 6,000,000 acres of land which is unaccounted for in the agricultural return. We know that 2,000,000 acres is represented by woods and forests, but the remainder, which is covered by towns, villages, factories, mines, recreation grounds, private houses, is being carefully examined by our staff of 300 crop reporters, and we hope to be able to report how far there is a substantial area of potential agricultural land included in that 4,000,000 acres. The Report will cover a very wide and new area of facts, but it will not deal with the possibility of increasing the production of this area or that, or give any opinion as to what may be the maximum capacity of this country. Short of a visitation of farm by farm and a careful examination of books and records, an opinion on this point must be valueless. A decrease in production may not be due to inefficiency or to bad methods, or bad management. It may be due to poor land, low prices, and bad seasons, and nothing but a careful examination of books and costs would really give the explanation. Opinions would be inconclusive, and if they did not bear out the views of hon. Members opposite, which they have so often expressed, I feel sure they would hold that it was because of the instructions on which the investigators set out on their task. We shall give definitely ascertainable facts and a complete statistical picture of the present stage of British agriculture and the changes which have taken place in the last few years.
I come to the Report which is being prepared by the Institute of Agricultural
Economics Research at Oxford. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has seen this book. It is difficult to summarise it, but I will do my best. The institute is engaged upon an agricultural survey, designed to secure data for the study of farm economics as a whole on the lines which have been made familiar by the work of American farm economists. A letter and schedule have been sent to upwards of 1,500 farmers, and after they have had time to collect the information—they are to be personally visited by investigators to clear up points which are in doubt and to help the farmers to fill up all the information required. The reports are then taken back to Oxford and tabulated and statements are made showing—these are only examples—the value of production on particular farms of various sizes, the influence of the size of the farm on the nature of the farming business, the influence of the type of the farm on the labour requirements of the farm, the influence of the size and type of the holding on labour efficiency, the influence of the type of farm on the use of manures, and the relation of crop yields to rent of farms. They will further throw new light on many important economic aspects of farming, some of them questions which often form the subject of political controversy, such as the most efficient size of farm for a particular kind of farming. They will also show the economic factors which influence the system of management, and bring out the conditions which make for the success of small farms and small holdings, and the most suitable types of equipment, stock, etc., required. It will afford definite and considered data as to the methods of marketing produce. Hon. Members will admit that this work of the Oxford Institute will fulfil the same purpose and cover .a much wider area than the inquiry covering 300 farms in Kincardineshire which has been instituted by my right hon. Friend beside me.
Apart from these special inquiries which we hope to see realised in a few months, the Ministry have appointed eleven advisory economists, attached to the principal agricultural colleges and university departments. These economists
are collecting information from the farmers in their areas.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In what areas?

Mr. GUINNESS: There are 11 different centres to which they are attached, and they deal with their own -areas. I think perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will realise the work which is being done if I say it includes the work of Mr. Ashby at Aberystwyth; Dr. Ruston, attached to Leeds University; and Mr. Venn at Cambridge. These investigators have great experience and believing, as we do, that skill in management is the most important factor in good farming, we attach great importance to obtaining and spreading reliable information on the true economic position and the best conditions for various types of farms in their own localities.
Finally, and this has been mentioned this afternoon, we arc pressing on with our inquiries into marketing. We hope to obtain greater information, which may help farmers to secure a fairer share of the profits of the home market which now so often escapes. I believe that any really reasonable demand for agricultural information is now being fully met, and that nothing will be gained by a roving inquiry as to whether the land is farmed to its maximum capacity without regard to the, economic factors of cost and price and the profit to be obtained by embarking capital on farming as compared with other industries. At the same time I am by no means contending that all is well and that there is no room for improvement, but I believe the way to improvement will be found by these inquiries which are taking place. It is common ground that there are disquieting features evident to everyone in British agriculture, and it is also obvious all the farming is not up to the level of the best. But is that peculiar to agriculture? Is it not equally true of every other of our great staple industries, and must we not remember that the farmer is peculiarly liable to the law of diminishing returns, and that many of them have had bitter lessons of the truth of the saying that high farming is not a remedy for low prices. We have had a terrible experience for the farmer in the steady and uniform drop in prices, and the index number is now lower than it has been since the War.
Considering that, and considering the reduction of the purchasing power of the
community by unemployment in connection with our present difficulties, it is in no way surprising that there should be at the present time a certain agricultural depression, but we must surely remember that it is not only here but all over the world that agriculture has to face these exceptional difficulties in trying to recover the position which was shattered by the transformation which took place during the War. Nowhere has there been a greater convulsion than in the farming of the United States, in spite of the abounding commercial prosperity with which American farmers have been surrounded. I think it is not only unwise but unjust continually to be depreciating and criticising the services which the British farmer tries to render to the community in the face of the most formidable difficulties. Ought we not rather to remember that there is no industry in which so much capital has been employed for a return lower than the owner could enjoy if he abandoned the struggle, realised his assets, and invested them in gilt-edged securities? Agriculture, as has been said this afternoon by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), is a slow-moving industry, and must, owing to the differences of soil and conditions" be an intensely personal industry. We cannot hope for any short cut, by an agricultural census or any other means, to the millennium. In the opinion of the Government, the road to the revival of prosperity will be found on the lines of the White Paper, by trying to strengthen the weak places and to discover and teach better methods of production and by removing the obstacles which hamper the free and fair play of private enterprise.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Minister of Agriculture is rather disposed to complain that I did not speak before he got up. My explanation is that I had already put my ease once or twice on the question of the survey, and I wanted to know what he proposed. I am not in the least sorry that I postponed what I had to say until after his reply, for I think it has been so far the most satisfactory answer to which I have had the privilege of listening from him, and I hope he will go a good deal further next time. The right bon. Gentleman gave an indication of two or three inquiries of first-class importance
which will elicit information of the very greatest importance, and which will be helpful from many points of view as far as those who believe that the restoration of the countryside is the most important, social and economic problem of the day are concerned. There are some who think that there is one method which will achieve that end, and there are others who think you must have different methods, but what matters is that there is a growing opinion as to the gravity of the conditions and as to the importance of something being done from some point of view to restore the condition of food production in this country.
Before I come to the detailed answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, I should like to make one or two general observations as to what fell from him and other speakers. Let rue say at once, there is no attack on the British farmer. I think the British farmer, under the conditions, is making the very best of his industry, and our complaint has bean that the conditions are not favourable for him to make the best use of his ability and that they do not encourage him to expend capital and to do what people in other industries are prepared to do. Our complaint is rather with regard to the conditions under which he works. I am not entitled to go into that question now because that would involve legislation, but I want to make it quite clear that our charge is not against the farmer, or his skill, his ability, his knowledge, or his industry, quite the reverse. I think, having regard to the conditions under which he works, he has achieved marvels, but our opinion is that the conditions ought to be altered in respect of tenure. in respect of the kind of assistance the Government gives him, in respect. of transport and marketing, and in respect of credit. All these conditions ought to be changed, and, until they are changed, the British farmer cannot make the best' out of his business. That is all I want to say with regard to that point, but I would not like it to be thought that we are asking for a survey in order to show what a bad job the British farmer is making of his industry. That is not our case.
The right hon. Gentleman brought a very serious charge against me, a charge of murder and infanticide. He said I was the parent of the Corn Production Act and that afterwards I assassinated
it. Neither of those statements is correct. I am not repudiating in the least responsibility for the Corn Production Act, because it was a- very essential Act in the conditions in which it was introduced. It was done in order to increase the production of food in this country at a time when communications were very precarious, and when it was a matter of calculation from one day to another whether we should have enough food to go through. At one moment we were with only about two months' supply in this country, and we had to devise every conceivable means to increase- production of food here. My impression is that Lord Selborne was the first to suggest it, and the driving force was very largely Lord Milner, whose views on this subject are well known to the right hon. Gentleman. He took a very large and statesmanlike view in my judgment of the essential need of some agricultural policy for the life and security of this country. He was largely responsible, but I myself did use the whole of my influence as Prime Minister to support him.
When you come to the question of how the thing came to an end, it was partly the responsibility of the Treasury and partly that of the House of Lords. It was an unholy conspiracy between the Treasury and the House of Lords that destroyed that Bill. The House of Lords, if the right hon. Gentleman will recollect, threw out the one condition under which the subsidy was granted, and that was the condition in regard to cultivation. They cut that out. The result was that there was not the same inducement for a subsidy, and the Treasury then came in and thought this was the opportunity to get rid of the whole thing, and they did so. We had unfortunately guaranteed, not merely wheat, but oats. The Scotsman said he had no interest in wheat, and the Irishman said the same thing, and they asked, " Why should all the money go to England? If there be any fat going, the Scotsmen ought to have their share."

Mr. MACOUISTEN: What about Wales?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Undoubtedly, and Wales. It was said, " If you are going to give a guarantee to the English wheat production, where do we come in? " As a matter of fact, looking back
on it, I think it was a mistake. It was essential during the War that you should produce oats and barley as well as wheat, but after the War I do not think it was essential, and I think it would have been wiser to have confined it to wheat. If that had been done, there would have been a very different story to tell, because oats suddenly broke in the market, and it involved a loss of something like £15,000,000
to £20,000,000, mostly over oats. That really broke the Corn Production Act. I am only defending myself against this charge of murder and infanticide which was brought against me.
The other point I want to make is with regard to what fell from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Major Price). I think his argument was a perfectly fair one, but he quite missed the point. The loss was very largely over the settlement of soldiers and ex-service men on the land, and that was due to conditions which do not exist at the present moment. You had to undertake the settlement of soldiers on the land immediately after the War, because there was a promise given when you were recruiting—a recruiting promise—that when they came back everything would be done to try and get them settled on the land. It was felt, therefore, to be a question not of cash but of honour. It was the same sort of promise as was given in the days of the Roman Empire. It is the sort of promise that has been given in almost every great war undertaken in the history of the world. And there has been always the same difficulty, the difficulty of the cash and the land. You had to redeem it at a time when building cost three times and even four times as much as before the. War. You could not consider the question economically, for it involved an obligation of honour. That is why the £18,000,000 or £20,000,000 was voted. We knew that we could not possibly build at less than three or four times the pre-War cost, and equipment cost so much that we could not possibly let at a rate which was economic. That loss was a calculated loss; it was a loss which the House of Commons knew perfectly well would have to Be faced. It is unfair, therefore, to charge the small holdings policy with something which had reference to that very special condition, when the House of Commons
deliberately ignored the loss in order to discharge its obligation of honour to the recruit.

Major PRICE: My point was that the losses had been incurred, spread over, not the years immediately after the War, but the eight years since the War, and that losses had been incurred within the last two or three years. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can suggest that the cost of building is going immediately to fall because that particular Act has passed away. The cost of building will be the same, or approximately the same, next year as this, and the loss will go on.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite wrong. The losses which he quoted are losses incurred from the obligations of the first few years after the War.

Major PRICE: No.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have not the actual documents here, and I do not think that anything will be gained by my saying "Yes" and the hon. and gallant Member saying "No."

Major PRICE: We were blamed for not getting to work directly after the War. The loss was not incurred in the first few years.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The £18,000,000 was expended in the main in respect of settlements immediately after the War. I know that from experience. One of the difficulties that we had in Scotland was that we came to a point where the cost of equipment was so high, owing to the cost of building, that we had to decide whether it was possible to go on. We found it extraordinarily difficult. But the cost of building has come down to something approximating an economic level. I am not saying that the community will not have to face a certain amount of expenditure if we are going to put the countryside right. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health is bringing in a Bill to-morrow under which he is going to face a, certain obligation. It is the same with regard to general housing. I do not believe that you will put the countryside right without facing a certain expenditure, in order to make up for the past. That is one of the things to be considered. However, I am not going into that question, because it
raises a very large issue. I turn rather to the question of detail of the investigation. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman, who is prepared to have the kind of investigation these Oxford gentlemen are initiating, cannot go further. He says that it will involve an inquisitorial investigation into the accounts. Unless these gentlemen have an inquisitorial investigation their report will be of no use at all. What is there to be done? They are to get the costings in all these 1,500 farms. I was very glad to hear that it was to be done.
I know Professor Rushton and the others. They cannot come to conclusions until they get every figure that the farmers can give them. That involves a complete account by 1,500 farmers of what their farms cost, their expenditure and their receipts, and then a balance will be worked out. Unless the investigators get details the reports will be of no use. I do not think that there will be the difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman imagines. They will get the 1,500 agriculturists who are working in that area to supply the accounts, provided that the names are not given. The latter point is of importance, for a man does not want to have all his accounts published. As long as there is a guarantee given by the investigators that the castings will not be published, they will get the information. I am in a mood to urge rather than to criticise, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he finally makes up his mind, whether he cannot go further. Why does he not go as far as his colleague beside him, the Secretary of State for Scotland? Let them talk over the subject together. Through the courtesy of my right hon. Friend, I have had supplied a report of what he is doing in Kincardineshire. There you have a whole county where A, survey has been undertaken, and a very searching survey.
The Minister of Agriculture asks, " Are you going to have an inquisitorial investigation? " I do not like to use the word " inquisitorial," but this Kincardine inquiry is a very searching examination of accounts. The method employed in carrying out this survey was, briefly, as follows: Every individual farm and holding, over 30 acres arable, was visited. Then a full account of the profits and the costings was
obtained. As far as I can see from the Report, no one withheld any information. On the contrary, they very readily granted the information. Certainly, I see here no account of any resentment on the part of the farmers in Kincardineshire, nor would there be elsewhere as long as it was known that the information was gathered in the interests of agriculture, that it was not obtained for any political purpose, nor in order to report to the agent or to show up any landlord or estate, but to get general information as to the state of agriculture in a particular county. Every farmer would be treated in the same way, and as long as it is known that you are not picking and choosing, the farmers would not complain.
I had exactly the same experience with the Census of Production Act. I remember the father of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, coming to me behind the Speaker's Chair and saying, "of course you will have the charge made that you are inquisitorial. They brought the same charge against me in respect of some other Act which I introduced." Then he said. " is worth while facing it." We had to get the most detailed information with regard to the yield of businesses, and whether there was a rival enterprise, and the most important thing was to make it perfectly clear that information would not be given to anyone else, but that it would be used in the aggregate for the purpose of knowing the state of industry in the country. I shall never forget the interview that I had with the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion, or the valuable advice which he gave me before I introduced the Bill. It is equally true here. If we convince the farmer that the information is required, not to annoy and harass him, but in order to get information upon which to base a policy for improving agriculture as a whole, no difficulty will he experienced.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for 'Scotland has experienced no difficulty in Kincardineshire. That was a. very searching investigation. I would have liked it to go a little further. The investigation was not inquisitorial at all. I would like the question to be put " Is there a shortage of houses? " There is
no reason why that question should not be asked. That information would be very useful from the point of view of the County Council, and the County Council might be able to answer it. The hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Price) seems to think they could do it. Why could not the Minister of Agriculture do it. I hope that we shall have another opportunity of pressing him on the subject, and that he will go still further than he has gone. He has gone very much further than he has given any indication of up to the present. There is a good deal of the information he is getting which will be invaluable, especially after the searching examination as to the 1,500 farms in that area. Why should he not do as has been done in Scotland and take one or two counties, if he thinks six are too many? He might take one or two typical counties.
There is no one here who knows agriculture better than the hon. Member for Forfar (Sir H. Hope). He made a very interesting speech. His scientific farming is an example to the poor Southerner, who does not always achieve the same measure of success. The hon. Gentleman said that farming in this country is very good. That may be the case. But I notice that he took certain counties. For instance, there was Lincolnshire. There is no doubt at all that for very special reasons there has been a very great success in Lincolnshire, but Lincolnshire is not a typical county, and it does not represent the whole of England in respect of the amount of produce that you get out of the soil or the quality of it. Even in choosing counties in Scotland he chose some of the best, and I think he knows that he did so. You must take agriculture as a whole. This is not merely a question for farmers or agricultural labourers. It is a question for the country as a whole. It is a question of food production, a question of employment, a question of reviving the countryside. It is no use saying that agriculture is merely suffering like any other industry. These symptoms were almost as true with regard to agriculture before the War as after the War. It has been a gradual decay. The population has been leaving the land. The output has not been maintained. Since the War there have been special conditions which do not apply to any other industry. This is a
thing which the right hon. Gentleman always ignores, and it is one of the things that a survey of Britain would bring out.
The capitalist in agriculture is no longer in a position to spend the necessary cash in order to keep up the land. It is not a question merely of drainage on a large scale, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby), who wanted to divert some river from the east to the west—no doubt a most admirable scheme. I am not referring to cases of that kind. Look at the speech of the Minister's predecessor, who criticised Welsh agriculture and talked about neglected drainage and land becoming waterlogged. It is not a question of great areas being swamped by floods, but a question of general deterioration. I wish that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland would supply the Minister of Agriculture with a few copies of the Scottish Report on Agriculture. For instance, there is the Report which he issued with regard to the condition of drainage in Scotland, where he points out that a good deal of the drainage of Scotland had been very largely neglected because of the lack of capital, and that the land was becoming waterlogged. It is because you have general deterioration owing to the fact that the landlord his not any longer the necessary cash for the purpose of keeping it up. [Interruption.] I do not know what there is to say about that. That is so. The taxation of the War has reduced the surplus which the landlord has available for the purpose of spending upon drainage and other things. I hope, having started this investigation, the right hon. Gentleman will persevere in well-doing and will extend the area of his inquiry.

Orders of the Day — ABYSSINIA.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I would like to direct the attention of the House to the question of the new Treaty which has been contracted between ourselves and the Italian Government in reference to Abyssinia. Abyssinia is one part of the African Continent which, so far, has not been divided between the great Powers of Europe. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary will forgive me if I say that the very idea of any advance, economic or otherwise, made by any great European Powers in any part of the African Continent,
naturally excites, from the beginning, the suspicion and alarm of those who remember what has happened as a result of the partition of other parts of Africa between European Powers. When we hear that Abyssinia is the subject of representations to the greatest Powers in the world, we cannot help thinking of Egypt, of Tripoli, and of Morocco. There is a strange similarity—I am not saying in reality but in appearance—between the Moroccan situation and the Abyssinian situation. You have two Powers—in that case Spain and France, in this case Great Britain and Italy—and a third Power—in this case France, in that case Germany—watching, with, perhaps, not always very friendly intent. We must remember that, connected with our own occupation of Egypt and with the Franco-Spanish occupation of Morocco, there were moments and names which brought us to the very verge of war. In 1898 for some months we were on the brink of war with France arising from the quarrel about the partition of that part of the Nile Valley. Agadir, Tangier —these are names in Morocco which remind us that the Great War can he traced by those qualified to do so in detail, and by the general observer in reality to the European policy of the partition of Africa. Tripoli is another such name; and in every case we had the same assurances that the sovereignty of the particular country concerned was to be fully respected. Look at the Egyptian and the Moroccan documents, and you will always find the phrase that the sovereignty of the State affected was not in any way to he infringed by the now arrangement proposed. When we find the same sort of documents on the present situation in Abyssinia using the same language, then it is natural that we should feel suspicious and should demand full information. I notice it stated in " Le Temps " that in their opinion the action of the Italians was a stroke against German ambition, and they rejoice in the idea that the Anglo Italian Treaty is going.. to advance the Latin idea. They say:
 There is de factosolidarity in the Mediterranean, between France and Italy, to assure throughout the world the future of the Latin idea.
That is exactly the sort of language which was used by the Germans when they were pursuing a policy of world
power in order to secure what they called the German idea. Signor Davanzati, who can be regarded as au Italian spokesman, says:
France's behaviour in the present circumstances shows a small sense of loyalty to the Powers who have vital interests in North Africa.
That is the same idea again—the idea of great Powers uniting to exploit an African State. In this case we are under a treaty agreement with Italy, and the Italian record in their dealings with the sovereignty of Abyssinia is a bad record. They succeeded at one time—in 1887 I think—in making a treaty by virtue of which they secured a protectorate over Abyssinia, and if it had not been for the ghastly defeat at Adowa, about eight years later, there would have been established an Italian protectorate over the Abyssinia State. In 1915 again we had the Treaty of. London. I am not going to criticise the Treaty of London, because we were hard put to it to secure friends in the War, but the wording of the treaty speaks about territorial compensation for the Italians as a reward for their intervention on behalf of the Allies in the War. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman will reply that we never regarded any territorial compensation as in the least affecting Abyssinia. Italy has had part of Jubaland, has had an adjustment of the boundary with Tripoli, which fulfils, as we think, this obligation. We should like to know if it is the Italian standpoint that the territorial compensation promised in the treaty of 1915 affects in any way the territory of Abyssinia. As regards ourselves, with the exception of the expedition in 1868, I do not think we have had any hostile relations with Abyssinia. In fact, we had some friendly assistance from them at the time of the Mahdist rebellion.
It is proper that we should make commercial arrangements or agreements with them and that for value received they ought to give us the rights to construct the necessary works at Lake Tsana for the purpose of securing more water for Egypt and the Sudan. There is nothing improper in that and, in fact a long time ago they agreed that they would not themselves construct any works which would be hurtful to such a scheme when
it became ripe. In 1906 there was the famous Tripartite Treaty on which the present Treaty is based. The strange thing about the Tripartite Treaty of 1906 is that it affects Abyssinia but Abyssinia is not one of the three signatories. It is signed by three foreign States about Abyssinia, and the Abyssinians were not, in its initiation, parties to this Treaty. It is a Treaty which, as far as one can sum it up generally, says that the three parties will not get in one another's way in their economic enterprises in Abyssinia. Article II of that Treaty deals with this point and, if that be the Article on which the present Treaty is based, there is nothing at all in it about any exclusive exploitation.

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): Which Treaty?

Captain BENN: The Treaty of 1906.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It may only be a question of language, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman is constantly speaking of the " present treaty." There is no present treaty. I take it he means the exchange of Notes.

Captain BENN: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I am not versed in diplomatic language. I am speaking about an effective agreement and I call it a treaty, but in the nomenclature of the Foreign Office it is an exchange of Notes. In the Tripartite Agreement of 1906 I do not find in Article II, which deals with the grants of concessions, anything which applies to any undertaking on our part to secure the exclusive exploitation of any part of Abyssinia to any power. Article II, which, imagine, is the basis of the new exchange of Notes, says that as regards demands for agricultural, commercial and industrial concessions in Ethiopia the three parties undertake to instruct their representatives to act in such a way that any representation which may be made in the interest of one of the three States, may not be injurious to the interests of the two others. There is nothing about exclusive rights for anybody in the Treaty of 1906.
A very great thing happened in 1919. The League of Nations wail formed and the great Powers announced that they were going to reshape the whole of their foreign policy, which of course includes
such things as the partition of Africa, with a view to avoiding in the future the causes of conflict which produced the Great War. In 1923 Abyssinia became a member of the League of Nations. I think I am right in saying that Abyssinia did so in face of the opposition of Great Britain and Italy. That fact itself is worth noting, in passing, in view of the exchange of Notes which has taken place between the two Powers. In 1925, comes this new agreement. We are to have the right to construct some waterworks at Lake Tsana and a motor road into the Sudan. I do not know who is to guard the motor road. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman in his reply will say whether we are to have the right to put any military posts along the motor road to safeguard it against brigandage or any sort of interference. That is a matter of substance, because if we were to put soldiers on the road and if anyone were to kill one of those soldiers it would immediately create a demand for some action on our part. It is no use treating the matter with derision because that is the sort of thing which creates ill-feeling and before we know where we are, we find that some sort of expedition is considered necessary for the honour of the country.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no derision.

Captain BENN: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He is an expert in these matters and 1 am not, but it is not a question for experts; it is a question for the decision of the people of this country. In the treaty, or the exchange of Notes, of 1925 we find an entirely new
feature. The letter to Senor Mussolini states that the British Government are prepared to recognise an exclusive Italian economic influence in the west, of Abyssinia. The Italian reply emphasises this and states that the Royal Italian Government note that in the event of His Britannic Majesty's Government, with the effective support of the Italian Government, obtaining from the Abyssinian Government the concession asked for, they will recognise the exclusive character of the Italian economic influence in the west of Abyssinia. I can find nothing in the Agreement of 1906 which promises that we will support exclusive economic influence for Italy or any other Power in
Abyssinia, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will devote a few sentences of his reply to an explanation of the word " exclusive." It appears to me that by this exchange of Notes we pledge ourselves and another Power, demanding concessions in this part of Africa, to resist the demands of other Powers with obvious danger to our good relations with those other Powers, whoever they may be.
All through 1925 this exchange of Notes was being concocted. In December it was actually effected. We knew nothing about it. I do not know whether it came to light by accident or whether it was intended to publish it, but at any rate it did not reach the public Press until the middle or late spring of the present year. It appears that on the 15th June, when the contents of the Note became known to the Regent of Abyssinia, he sent a strong letter of protest to the British and Italian Governments, and this was a matter of surprise to many people, because the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply on the 30th June, rather gave one to understand—at least, I understood from his answer—that the Notes had been exchanged, but that any sort of interchange of Notes with the Abyssinian Government had not yet taken place. On the 29th July the Abyssinian Government sent a Note to the League, a very dignified Note, which would appeal to disinterested people as being a Note couched in the spirit of justice. These are the facts concerning the exchange of Notes dealing with Abyssinia. I would like to say again that, as regards a real, commercial agreement for the supply of water in the Sudan, no objection can he taken, but this is a different thing. This is the joint Agreement of two great Powers to present joint demands to a very weak Power, a very small Power, the latest and the weakest member of the League of Nations, and I think that they are right in protesting that they are not given that full commercial liberty of decision which they should have when they find themselves faced with identical demands made by two Powers whose influence, economic or military, they are quite unable to resist.
I understand further that the question of Abyssinian membership of the League may be raised, because I believe that when they became a member of the League of Nations they gave certain
undertakings in reference to the suppression of slavery. No doubt there are many misdeeds in the government of Abyssinia—there is no doubt about that —but I would like to know whether there is any question, at the forthcoming meeting of the League, of anyone attempting to remove them from membership of the League, on the ground that they have not fulfilled their obligations in reference to slavery. Everyone would desire that slavery should be suppressed, and that the League of Nations should require members of the League to suppress slavery, but if, at the very moment that you are working jointly with the Italian Government, who have never been particularly enthusiastic about the League and who have never been very squeamish in dealing with weaker Powers, you are also going to start an inquiry as to whether Abyssinia ought to be in the League at all, I say that you lay yourselves open to the suspicion that the inquiry or demand as to the membership of the League is not bona fide,but motived by your ambitions in other directions.
Then, again, I understand that in fact Abyssinia's political integrity is protected under Article 10 of the Covenant. The fact that the 1906 Agreement was pre-War has nothing whatever to do with it. The Covenant itself, in Article 10, says that any agreement hostile to the Covenant is automatically abrogated by the signature of the Covenant itself. Abyssinia stands protected by Article 10 of the Covenant. She has asked for an inquiry into this matter, I understand from this letter from the Regent, by the League of Nations. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to say what form that inquiry will take, whether it. will be an inquiry before the Council of the League, if so, who will represent Abyssinia's interests in the inquiry, whether she will be made a temporary member of the Council for the purpose of the inquiry, or what form the inquiry will take, because I believe that there is a volume of opinion in this country which sees a possible danger in this form of negotiations, and dislikes extremely joint Notes concocted privately by great Powers and presented to weaker Powers.
These matters of Foreign Office affairs may involve a great deal of experience
and a great deal of knowledge, but at root they affect particularly the whole mass of the population, because if, in fact, they are possible causes of War, it is not only the diplomats and the people who make these agreements and the concessionaires who have to suffer; it is the people who have to find the money and the men to conduct the war. The people of the world really believed that in the signature of the Covenant of the League of Nations a new spirit was to inform the whole diplomacy of this country and the other great Powers, and they are very anxious that, in reference to this particular Agreement, some reassurance should be given by the Government that in fact the policy which is to be pursued will not be the old policy of the great Powers partitioning the weak States of Africa, but the new policy, in which we regard ourselves as trustees for the weak, and in which we pursue legitimate commercial aims in a spirit of disinterestedness and in strict accord with the instinct of the League of Nations.

Mr. PONSONBY: I am very glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) has taken this opportunity to make inquiries with regard to a question which is undoubtedly of very great importance and which should be brought before the House before we adjourn for the holidays. The document that was issued giving the exchange of Notes between His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government certainly was of such a nature as to make us anxious as to the negotiations that were being carried on, but when, recently, the Regent of Abyssinia. addressed a Note to the League of Nations protesting against these negotiations between this country and -Italy, the whole matter assumed a gravity of which we must take notice very carefully. This method of conducting diplomatic negotiations with another Government about a third Power is doubtful in the extreme, and when that third Power is a comparatively weak Power, that has not got the same prestige or voice in the Council of Nations, it is no wonder that people regard that form of negotiations with some suspicion.
We have been accustomed before now to hear of economic spheres of influence being assigned to this Power and to that Power, and we can all remember, just before 1914, the very grave predicament
into which we had been brought by the partition of Persia in that very same way between the Czarist Government of Russia and ourselves, with a territory that was left to the Persians in between. It was becoming increasingly embarrassing for us. We know that economic spheres of influence are a preliminary to a partitioning of political spheres of influence. We find that this exchange of Notes between this Government and the
Italian Government took place in December, 1925, but that the Abyssinian Government was not informed until June of this year. The Regent of Abyssinia, in sending his covering Note to the League of Nations, says:
The arrangement was arrived at without our being consulted or informed.
That, I venture to say, is a most serious charge to make, and it naturally arouses a great deal of suspicion. Why should not the party chiefly concerned, in whose territory all the work projected was to take place, he consulted at every stage of the proceedings? Then we find that the Regent of Abyssinia, in acknowledging the Note which was sent by His Majesty's Minister in Abyssinia, makes the following comment:
 The fact that you have come to an Agreement, and the fact that you thought it necessary to give us a joint notification of that Agreement, make it clear that your intention is to exert pressure, and this, in our view, at once raises a previous question. The British Government had already entered into negotiations with the Abyssinian Government with reference to its proposal, and we had imagined that, whether that proposal was carried into effect or not, the negotiations would have been concluded with us; we should never have suspected that the British Government would come to an Agreement with another Government regarding the lake.
Therefore, the Regent of Abyssinia regards this method of negotiation as exercising pressure, and that was what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition feared when he asked the
Foreign Secretary, on the 5th July:
" Is it quite clear that this Agreement between Italy and ourselves is not to be used for the purpose of coercing Abyssinia into granting Italian claims and our own later on? "
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
It certainly is not to he used and cannot be used for the purpose of coercing the Abyssinian Government. I believe the Agreement to be in the interests of all three parties, but of course the Abyssinian Govern-
ment have a perfect right to judge of what is in the interest of Abyssinia."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 5th July, 1926; col. 1614, Vol. 197.]
I should like to examine this question of pressure and coercion. Our desire, and a perfectly laudable desire, is to get sufficient water for the Sudan by the construction of a barrage in Lake Tsana, and by the further construction of a motor road from the lake up to the frontier. We consider that that is a necessity to the Sudan, and that we are
perfectly justified in asking the Abyssinian Government to concede our request on this point, but, failing in our negotiations with Abyssinia, which have been protracted and have gone on for sonic years, admittedly, we have linked up our demand with a demand that Italy has for a railway from the frontier of Eritrea in the North, through Western Abyssinia, into Italian Somaliland. Anyone who understands that Abyssinia is the same size as Germany, France and Spain put together fully realises the enormous extent of territory involved. Coupled with this railway concession is this demand, which my hon. and gallant Friend has already quoted, for an exclusive sphere of economic influence for Italy.
What is going to happen? If we fail in our request with regard to Lake Tsang, then the Italians cannot go on with their railway, and the whole thing falls to the ground. If the Italians fail
in their claim to the railway, we have to throw up this scheme that we want to link up the waters to the Sudan. The two things hang together. Now it
is perfectly clear that we have linked ourselves on to the Italian claim and are not content to continue our negotiations alone, because we want to exert pressure against Abyssinia. Otherwise,
what is the exact meaning of this double claim? We are now compelled to with-draw this claim to get water from Lake Tsana if the Italians fail to get this further immense railway traversing the
whole of Abyssinia. It is the strangest form of diplomacy that we have ever had in modern times. It has some very disagreeable features, because all this is going on behind the backs, so to speak, of the chief parties concerned, who are
protesting against it in an extremely dignified and well-grounded way to the League of Nations. My hon. and gallant
Friend the Member for Leith asked in what form the Abyssinian protest will come up before the League. notice in the correspondence that the Secretariat of the League, on the 22nd July, have acknowledged the Abyssinian protest and have asked the Abyssinian Government in what form they desire this matter to come before the Council of the League. They asked for a telegraphic answer, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, in replying, will be able to inform us what the Abyssinian Government has said and in what form this matter will come before the League of Nations; whether it will come before the Council, and, if it does, whether the Abyssinians will be represented on the Council. We have a traditional friendship with Abyssinia. It is the last independent Kingdom left in Africa. The Abyssinians see the great Powers gradually creeping round and exerting pressure on them, and they very naturally feel that their integrity and independence are threatened.
We found during the period that we were in office that the negotiations were being carried on with regard to Lake Tsana. It was in 1924 that the Regent of Abyssinia Came over to this country, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. It. MacDonald) who was then Foreign Secretary, had conversations with him on this very point. He was not agreeable to any of the projects that were put before him. Negotiations, no doubt, have been protracted and difficult. He is naturally suspicious and jealous of the encroachments on the integrity of his country by economic exploitation of any sort or kind; but I do not think it would have ever occurred to my right hon. Friend, after the Regent had left the country, to say, " I cannot get on with you, but I can get on with Signor Mussolini behind your back, and the two of us will be strong enough to make you toe the line." It has come as a shock to us to find that the old diplomacy, the old ideas of exercising pressure on two sides against these small, less developed, I will not say less civilised countries, still existed. We thought that that kind of diplomacy had gone, but here we have a very flagrant and very dangerous instance of it. I can only hope that the one solution of this difficulty rests in the existence of the League of Nations. The League
of Nations is in being, and we all hope it is strengthening its authority and its position. Abyssinia is a member of the League of Nations, and has very properly and correctly brought its cause of complaint before the League. I hope that we shall abide by the decision of the League and help Abyssinia to see that its case is properly put before them, and not, along with our partner, Signor Mussolini, exercise any outside pressure, but use the authority which our strength and our prestige can bring to help so small and ill-developed a country as Abyssinia. It is a tradition of this country that we are proud to help small and undeveloped countries in their difficulties and strengthen them in their weakness. It will be a very bad day when that tradition is broken, and I am sorry that this correspondence and this course of diplomacy has given us so much cause for anxiety. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, when he replies, will be able to dispel some of our fears.

Sir MURDOCH MACDONALD: I would like to present to the House an entirely different view from that put before it by the two previous speakers. I do not intend to deal with the question as to the desirability of entering into a commercial treaty concerning a territory which is free and independent. What I would like to draw the attention of the House to is that it is quite possible that these Notes may result in too dear a purchase, apart altogether from the question of their desirability. The ostensible reason for the Notes is in order that the British Government or the Sudan Government may be able to control the waters issuing from Lake Tsana. If control over these waters can he easily and cheaply got, undoubtedly it would be a very excellent thing for the Sudan, but, in my view, it is not an absolute necessity. These waters are not so great a factor in the Nile problem that they alone should be made a necessity for the Sudan, and I do not think they are a necessity. There are alternative proposals which could be carried out, which would have the same effect as the control of Lake Tsana, and over which we or the Sudan Government have control without interfering with Abyssinia. There is an impression in the Abyssinian minds, as well as in the minds of a great number of our own
countrymen, that the control of the lake will in some way interfere with the tombs or temples which are known to be on the small islands in the lake itself. There need be no interference whatsoever, even if the Sudan Government does get control of this lake. There is no need to increase the levels so that the temples will be prejudicially affected.
Many years ago I made a suggestion to Lord Kitchener on this same subject, which was that, instead of storing the flood waters by making the flood still higher in the lake, we should lower the outlet to such an extent that, the lake being a deep one, a lower part of the lake would be made available rather than the top as a storage place for water in the flood season. There would then be no difficulty regarding the temples or tombs. But the whole scheme might be conceivably purchased too dearly from the point of view of negotiations with Italy, or it might be purchased too dearly from the cash point of view. In the latter case, it is possible, I believe, to build a dam at Roseires and store with it for the benefit of the Sudan. You could not there impound as much water as would be impounded at Lake Tsana, but there is no demand now or likely to be in the immediate future for any great volume of water. I understand a Commission has reported on the division of water between Egypt and the Sudan. Their Report has not been issued yet, but I think it is fairly well known that they were willing to give rather more water to the Sudan than it has at present. It is also well known that the quantity of water which the Sudan has could go over a much greater area of land than it is at present being restricted to. If the existing water could go over a greater area, then the Sudan will be provided for quite a long time ahead even under present circumstances. If new works were at Roseires rather than outwith the territory of the Sudan, it is possible that water supply could be carried on for many years ahead without the necessity of going to Lake Tsana during it.
The whole matter is complicated by the further difficulty that, at the present moment, the Egyptian Government have decided not to build a reservoir at Gebel Audia. It is perfectly obvious that it is political reasons which have been lead-
ing the Egyptian Government not to carry out that work, and it is not quite so much a technical problem. The Egyptian Government are afraid, apparently, of building works in the Sudan in case these works should be controlled by the Sudan in the years to come to their prejudice. I regret that they should have that feeling, because my advice to them in bygone years was that the more works the Egyptians had in the Sudan the more rights they would have there. They are particularly anxious to have rights in the Sudan, and, in my opinion, the only way is to build works there, so that they could say, "These are works for which we must have some rights le these territories." If the Egyptian Government, therefore, do not build the Gebel Aulia Dam, which I see by the reports in the Press is to be suspended in favour of raising the Assuan Dam, so as to be able to store more water there, it is possible that more water could be stored at Assuan, though, in my opinion, no great additional volume of water could be stored. Egypt, however, wants far more water than she could conceivably store even at Gebel Aulia. She has a great area of territory in the lower part of the country not yet developed, and for that area she requires water. The only real solution is to go to Lake Albert, and what I would like to suggest to the Government would be this: Has consideration ever been given to the inter-relation between the various works, apart from the order of building, as to their probable cost? In this case we are, apparently, going to incur something beyond the cash cast. We are going to make the Treaty cost, which may have influence over the trade of our nationals in Abyssinia in the years to come.
If the British Government authorised the building of a dam at Lake Albert with sufficient training works, then, undoubtedly, the problem for many years ahead would be solved for both Egypt and the Sudan, because if Egypt gets more water from Lake Albert, she need not restrict the Sudan, as now, on the Blue Nile. I would, therefore, suggest that consideration should be given to the question of whether the building by the Sudan Government of a dam at Lake Albert would not be a thing which would satisfy not only the Sudan but Egypt,
even if Egypt does not care to come in to help to find the money. As much water as Egypt could possibly require for 30, 40 or, may be, 50 years ahead, would be provided. I believe the Egyptian Government have been considering training the river through the sudd, and are contemplating the building of huge dredgers. I hope that particular scheme will not he abandoned, because it will really form part of a Lake Albert Reservoir scheme, and it will have an extraordinary effect. It will have this effect that, from Malakal southward, in the vast swampy region where the river is just at the level of the land, or, in a great number of places, slightly over it, the land being thoroughly waterlogged, and in the wet season the marshes almost turn it into a lake, if this training were done the whole level of the sudd would be lowered, and something like 40,000,000 acres of land would be made available for the cultivation of cotton.
At the present moment Lake Tsana reservoir is asked for by the Sudan Government because she desires—and rightly desires—to continue the cultivation of long staple cotton in the Gezira. But if it is really found to be true that the Egyptian Government is willing to give more water between July and the 1st January, then, undoubtedly, a very much greater area could be developed in the Sudan under long staple cotton. I think Manchester will agree that there is a limit to the quantity of long staple cotton which is really required, and what they are asking for is short staple cotton, and if the river through the marshes of the Sudan were lowered, there is no doubt whatever that a vast area of land would he made available for short staple cotton production. It is inside the rainy belt. It would not require irrigation water in the same way as the long staple cotton. As a consequence, the building of Lake Albert reservoir, and the lowering of the river through the sudd would be probably a better scheme for the British Government and Egyptian Government to carry out than the Lake Tsana scheme at present.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad that this subject has been raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I am much obliged to him for having given me
notice in the course of last week of his intention to raise it. I think our discussion will have been useful, because if we have occasioned so much anxiety to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and even shocked the late Under-Secretary of State, it is quite clear that a great deal of misconception must prevail as to the intentions both the British Government and of the Italian Government. The hon. Gentleman, who has just spoken, made a very interesting contribution to this Debate. He is a very high authority upon these questions, an expert authority, which I am not, and I should hesitate to bandy expert opinions with him. He admits the immense importance of an efficient and expanding water supply both to the Sudan and Egypt. He compares, with an expert knowledge, the different schemes and possibilities which they offer, and he seemed to favour, perhaps not unnaturally, the largest scheme which came within his purview, the draining of the Sudd, and all that follows on the use of the waters from Lake Albert. But the hon. Gentleman himself, I think, published a book not very long ago, and estimated that before this scheme could mature, at least 35 years must pass.
Thirty-five years is a long time to which to look forward in regard to the supply of water both to the Sudan and to Egypt, and I confess that I saw with profound regret and with some anxiety as to its effect upon the future prosperity of Egypt, and, in particular, the probable effect upon the Fellaheen, the decision, reported in the Press, of the Egyptian Government to postpone any credit for the Gebal Aulia, Dam. I think it will he found that the alternative which they suggest, that is, the raising of the Assuan Dam, has been fully examined by their predecessors, and by authorities whose efficiency and judgment they themselves would hardly dispute. The problem is a pressing one. The population of Egypt numbers 15,000,000. The land at present available for agriculture is about 7,500,000 acres, and it cannot be increased without further supplies of water being made available, whereas the population is increasing at the rate of something like 300,000 a year. There is a grave problem there, which in the interests, above all, of the Fellaheen of Egypt, ought to be taken into the earliest consideration, and I hope that,
though these Estimates have been postponed for the present, we will see the project resumed and the work carried out as expeditiously as possible, so that no great disaster may befall.
As regards Lake Tsana, let me begin by saying that this, of course, is no new problem. As long ago as 1901 it was placed by Sir William Garstin in the forefront of the works to be executed—in order of urgency it was placed first. So Lord Cromer observed arid reported in his Summary of that year. In 1902 the Emperor Menelik exchanged Notes dealing with this very matter. It is perhaps better that I should read the exact terms of the assurances which were exchanged:
That there is to he no interference with the waters of the Blue Nile and Lake Tsana, except in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government and the Government of the Sudan. That in case of any such interference; all other conditions being equal, preference will be given to the proposals of H is Majesty's Government and the Government of the Sudan, and that His Majesty the Emperor Menelik has no intention of giving any concession with regard to the Blue Nile and Lake Tsana except to His Britannic Majesty and the Government of the Sudan. or one of their subjects.
Then I come to the Tripartite Agreement of 1906, to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman who opened the discussion alluded. I think he ought to have made it. clear that the whole purpose and desire of the three Powers concerned was to maintain the integrity and the independence of Abyssinia, and that they put that in the forefront of their agreement arid their object. In this connection I would venture to observe that it is not always to the advantage of a small Power or a weak one that big Powers should be quarrelling about their interests in that small Power's territory. The rivalries of big Powers may be dangerous, and are much more likely to be dangerous to small Powers than are friendly agreements based on a common desire to preserve the integrity of the country in question.
Coming down the years, in 1914 I think it was, or a little earlier, negotiations tad been begun under the auspices of Lord Kitchener—I think the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald) alluded to it—and I am not sure that the whole matter might not have been settled at that time had it not been for the outbreak of the Great War and the interruption it brought to the negotiations.
Lastly, when His Imperial Highness Ras Taffari was here during the late administration in this country, conversations and Notes were exchanged by my 'predecessor and the Regent. The last of the series of Notes then exchanged was one from my predecessor to which the Abyssinian Government have never sent any reply.
As years pass the urgency of an increased water supply becomes more pressing to those who are directly responsible for the welfare of the Sudan—indirectly interested in, perhaps. but not able to disregard the responsibility for the welfare and safety of Egypt—and we have to take up these negotiations again. I was anxious to secure that exterior opposition should not intervene to prevent a friendly arrangement such as the Notes exchanged and the assurances given by the Emperor Menelik 24 years ago authorised us to expect in dealing with the Abyssinian Government. The initiative in respect of the Notes which were ultimately exchanged between the Italian Government and ourselves came from the British Government. I should say that I dealt first with the Italian Government, and as soon as we agreed with them and the Notes had been received here and printed they were communicated to the French Government and dispatched to Abyssinia, but as the post to Abyssinia is a long one the substance of them was at once telegraphed to our Minister in Abyssinia. He informed the Abyssinian Government of their character and contents. That information reached Ras Taffari and the Abyssinia Government before the end of January, the notes themselves having actually been sent in the month of December. Some correspondence—or some communication, I am not sure whether there was correspondonce—followed with the French Government, some slight alterations, suggested for the purpose of making nor meaning plainer, were adopted, some correspondence followed with our Minister in Abyssinia, and I think it: was not till June that the actual text of the Notes were presented to the Abyssinian Government.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Did the French agree?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The French were perfectly satisfied. I think I am entitled to say the French were entirely
satisfied by the explanations we gave of our part in it, and they published their own communique, the text of which I have not before me. A communique also appeared in the French Press which showed, I think, they were equally satisfied by the explanations which they had received from the Italian Government.

Captain BENN: Was the letter of protest dated 15th of June received from the Regent?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think I have received any letter of protest from the Regent. No, Sir, I have not. Explanations were offered to him when he showed some disquiet about the Note. Further explanations were offered to him, partaking of the character of those which I gave in this House, and a part only of which was quoted by the hon. Gentleman opposite. Let me repeat explicity that these things constitute a Bilateral Agreement between Italy and ourselves. They do not pretend to bind, and they cannot possibly bind, any other Government, whether the Government of Abyssinia or any other. They suggest and imply no attack on the independence of Abyssinia, and no limitation on the right of the Abyssinian Government to decide freely whether or not to grant us the concession which we ask. What they do is to secure us against Italian opposition to the grant by Abyssinia of a concession for the construction of the Tsana works by the Government of the Sudan, and to protect Italy against opposition through us for a concession for the construction of the railway. One railway has already been constructed as foreseen in the Tripartite Agreement of 1906 up to Addis Ababa. It is the French one, and I have no doubt it will serve the interests of the French Protectorate, and I am sure it will serve also the development and prosperity of Abyssinia. I repeat that the works contemplated by the Italians and ourselves will be equally to the advantage of Abyssinia, will not threaten her independence or integrity, and should cause little alarm to her government and little anxiety to her friends or to her people.
Hon. Members opposite seem to be very much troubled by this word "exclusive," and ask if we recognise the exclusive right of Italy. That can only be exclusive as against our own concessionaires. It
cannot and does not pretend to be exclusive against any third party. What it does mean is that we undertake not to support in opposition to Italy or the Italian concessionaire the claims of British concession hunters. Hon. Members have asked to be assured that in coming to this agreement with Italy we were not attempting to interfere with the discretion of the Abyssinian Government, or to impose our rule upon them. I have already said in answers to questions, one of which has already been quoted, that there is no desire to bring pressure to bear upon the Abyssinian Government. We have no desire to hurry them. We have approached them in a proper way and we have made our proposals in a friendly way. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith said something about. a suggestion of using some pretext to exclude Abyssinia from the League in order to get a favourable decision, but I have not heard of such a suggestion from any source.

Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman is rather straining what I intended to say. There has been some talk about some examination before the League of the propriety of Abyssinia remaining in the League, or at any rate of the fulfilment by Abyssinia of her obligations in respect of the slave trade. What I said was that any such inquiry at this juncture would be looked upon with a certain amount of mistrust by those who might think there might be an economic motive behind it.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have heard no suggestion of any proposal to raise the question as to whether Abyssinia ought to remain a member of the League. I should most certainly hope that she would remain a member of the League, and I think even if there be things which we may hope to see altered in her internal economy, and in the domestic side of society that it is probably by giving her a welcome into the League and giving her the assurance which membership of the League gives, and by making her a party to the deliberations of the League that we can best achieve those results.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: May we take it that the opposition which the British Government had to the entry of Abyssinia into the League is now definitely withdrawn?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Abyssinia is a member of the League, and there is no question of opposition. She is already a member and I hope she will remain a member.

Mr. SMITH: I would like to point out that in 1922–23 the British representative did raise opposition to the entry of Abyssinia into the League, and has that point of view now been withdrawn?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is now recalling past history. I know that at a. certain point one of my predecessors, representing the British Government, opposed Abyssinia, but there is no intention of raising that question again, and I say on behalf of His Majesty's Government that I trust Abyssinia will continue a member of the League. I have no comment to make on this point, and nothing to withdraw in relation to what a previous Government did at a previous time. I am sorry the point has been raised, because it really takes us off what is important. One hon. Gentleman opposite asked whether the Abyssinian Government had replied to the answer of the Acting Secretary of the League to their first communication. As far as I know they have not, nor have I up to this moment replied to the communication of the Acting Secretary-General of the League, that is to the communication to His Majesty's Government. As the only purpose of making a reply to that communication is to reassure all the Governments who are members of the League, or to whom the communication of the Abyssinian Government was sent, I do not think it will be considered disrespectful of me if I at once inform the House what the reply is which we propose to send. I will not read the whole of it, but I hope it will serve to carry further the assurance which I have given as to the intentions of the two Governments in the Debate this evening.

Mr. PONSONBY: Is that a reply to a communication received through the Secretariat of the League of Nations

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes; it will be addressed to the acting Secretary-General of the League of Nations at Geneva. I will read the whole of it. It, is as follows:
I am directed by His Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 22nd July, with which you were good enough to transmit copies of the letter addressed to Sir Eric Drummond by His Imperial Highness Ras Tafari, together with a protest in regard to the Notes exchanged between the British and Italian Governments in December, 1925, undertaking to afford each other mutual support when the consent of the Abyssinian Government is sought for the construction in Abyssinia of certain public works defined in the Notes.
2. His Majesty's Government regret that in spite of the assurances conveyed to the Abyssinian Government by the British and Italian Ministers at Addis Ababa when communicating the text of the AngloItalian Notes, their purport should have been misconstrued and intentions attributed to the British and Italian Governments which they have never entertained. The Abyssinian protest is so worded as to imply that the British and Italian Governments have entered into an agreement to impose their wishes on a fellow member of the League, even if against the latter's interests. Members of the League are asked to state whether it is right that pressure should thus be exerted on Abyssinia which they would doubtless repudiate if applied to them.
3. There is nothing in the Anglo-Italian Notes to suggest coercion or the exercise of pressure on the Abyssinian Government. Sir Austen Chamberlain has stated in Parliament that the agreement was certainly not to be used,' and could not be used, for the purpose of coercing the Abyssinian Government. He believed the agreement to be in the interest of all three parties, but added that ()I' course the Abyssinian Government had a perfect right to judge of what was in the interests of Abyssinia. His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires was instructed by telegraph on 14th July to bring these statements to the knowledge of Has Tafari.
4. As to the suggestion that the British and Italian Governments are trying to force the Abyssinian Government to yield to their requests in a hurry, and without being afforded time for reflection and study of the requirements of the Abyssinian people, I am to point out that in Notes exchanged between the British Minister in Addis Ababa and the Abyssinian Government on 18th March, 1902, the Emperor Menelik confirmed an oral undertaking given some days previously 'That there is to be' —
that is the passage that I have already read, and I need not read it again. The reply goes on:
Since the date of this undertaking, which shows that 24 years ago the Emperor Menelik contemplated the construction by the British Government of a barrage at Lake Tsana, His Majesty's Government on several occasions made specific proposals in regard to this work, the full effect of which it is now possible to foretell as the result of the detailed observations which have been carried out by scientific missions dispatched to the lake with the consent and assistance
of the Abyssinian Government. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government feel that they cannot fairly be charged with proceeding, in regard to Lake Tsana, with undue precipitancy.
5. In the concluding paragraph of their protest, the Abyssinian Government inquire whether the Anglo-Italian Notes can be regarded as compatible with the independence of Abyssinia, especially when those Notes state that a portion of Abyssinia will be 'reserved' to the economic influence of a particular Power. Sir Austen Chamberlain desires to emphasise that the Anglo-Italian Notes do not 'reserve' any part of Abyssinia to Italian economic influence. His Britannic Majesty's Government, so far as they are concerned, and under certain conditions, 'recognise an exclusive Italian economic influence in the west of Abyssinia and in the whole territory to be crossed by the above-mentioned railway' (joining Eritrea and Italian Somaliland). This recognition cannot affect the rights of third parties or hind the Government of Abyssinia. It imposes no obligation on anyone except the British Government, who, in return for the Italian undertakings in regard to Lake Tsana, engaged not to compete or to support competition with Italian enterprise in the regions specified.
6. Sir Austen Chamberlain will he happy to repeat. these explanations and assurances to Abyssinia in the presence of the Council at its next meeting, when it takes into consideration the Note addressed to you by the Government of Abyssinia,
I trust that the House—

Captain BENN: Will Abyssinia he represented?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Most certainly.

Captain BENN: By whom?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: By whomsoever she chooses to send. The character of her representation is entirely a matter for herself. If the Council enters on a discussion of the Note of the Abyssinian Government and the reply of His Majesty's Government, and any reply that the Italian Government may think proper to send, if it does send one, then it will be in accordance with the practice and rules of the Council that Abyssinia should be invited to take her seat at the Council for the purposes of that discussion.
It will be seen that His Majesty's Government have no improper purpose to serve, are contemplating no unfriendly act or forcible or improper pressure on the Abyssinian Government, but that we recognise their right to decide about their own territory, and we
believe we should be able to convince them that this work is in itself perfectly harmless to them and to the interests they have to protect, that it may be a source of profit to Abyssinia, and that they may find their interest in giving to the Sudan Government the concession we seek. Though I regret that the Abyssinian Government should have felt so suspicious as to think an appeal to the League necessary, and though I had at one time entertained the hope that the explanations which our Ministers had given had removed those suspicions and would render any such appeal unnecessary I say, for my part, that I welcome the opportunity which the League may afford of showing the innocence of British policy and the propriety of the action of the British Government before the Council of the League of Nations.

Mr. R. SMITH: I heard, with considerable pleasure, the letter which the Foreign Secretary has just read. I cannot help regretting, however, that such a letter should have been necessary. I find it difficult to understand that in 1926 it is possible for the Foreign Secretary to approach diplomacy with an independent State in the manner he has been doing, and in the manner that this correspondence with Italy reveals. If this correspondence had been published in 1907, we could have taken the view of historical continnity, because the spirit and the attitude of the Foreign Secretary are quite in harmony to-day with the attitude that was manifested in the Tripartite Agreement of 1906. The right hon. Gentleman accused me of going into history when I went back three years, but I think he will be the first to recognise that in the last 20 years the foreign policy of the great Powers of the world has undergone very great changes, and that we have to deal, in handling the whole Abyssinian question, with a point of view and an attitude entirely new in our history: I cannot understand why the Foreign Secretary should have waited until after he had concluded his arrangements with Italy before, even unofficially, he approached the very Power that is concerned. I cannot understand why the one independent native State of Africa, which, since 1923, has been a member of the League of Nations, and, therefore, is
entitled in foreign affairs to be treated in a spirit of friendliness and equality in such a matter as this, which concerns fundamentally and vitally her economic if not her political existence, should not have been approached direct and have been consulted from the very first in an open and friendly way about the project concerned.
So far as this is a matter of economic development, so far as it is a matter of utilising to greater advantage the waters of the Nile, for the benefit ultimately of Abyssinia, the Sudan and Egypt, I do not think we require any assurance from any part of the House that no one would ever dream of opposing it. The greatest need of all parts of Africa is for tremendous and rapid developments in economic life. The fundamental thing that wants to be done in Africa is the rapid—as rapid as may be—expansion of great reconstruction schemes, both with regard to the waterways and railways and other fundamental productive enterprises. But I should have thought that, in 1926, even if Abyssinia had not been a member of the League, even if she had been an independent State without conscious and deliberate relations with the League of Nations, in the light of all we have lived through since 1906, and especially since 1914, if the right hon. Gentleman was really anxious to enter into friendly economic relations of cooperation with that Power, he would have gone to them and consulted with them from the beginning. Suppose, for example, that Germany and France and the United States had entered into some kind of economic arrangement to do something here in Great Britain, there would have been tremendous indignation. We should not only have been talking about economic penetration, we should have been talking about the threat to our very national existence. And when we remember the past history of Abyssinia, how she has been attacked, once by the British, how she has been attacked from the Egyptian side and attacked by the Italians, we can understand at once why they should have the most grave and most reasonably grounded suspicion when a scheme of this kind is suddenly put before them without so much as a moment's consultation.
I thought when I read of the six months official delay in the handing over of the
correspondence to Abyssinia, the Foreign Secretary might have had in mind the six months' delay with the late Ruler of Abyssinia was guilty of when the tripartite agreement came into operation. I gathered that he did not quite know how to answer the assurance that there was no intention at all with regard to affecting the integrity or independence of the State. It took him a long time to understand the meaning of that language used in documents of that kind. It is worth while to remind him of the answer he gave after this six months of deliberation 20 years ago. He said:
We have received the arrangement. made by the three Powers.
Again without their consultation in those days as in these.
 We thank them for their intentions and their desire to keep and maintain the independence of our Government, but let it be understood that this arrangement in no way limits what we consider our sovereign rights.
9.0 P.M.
It appears that 20 years ago the monarch was very anxious as to what was meant by this question of the unlimited authority which Abyssinia then enjoyed. I want, therefore, to ask the Foreign Secretary, following the valuable letter he has read, that he will, when he goes to the Assembly of the League this year, take every proper occasion to come into direct contact with the Abyssinians on this proposition, and to dispel the very serious and justly grounded feelings which not only they, but thoughtful citizens in this and other countries entertain with regard to the particular method which has been adopted in connection with this water enterprise from the sour4.es of the Nile.
I should like also to stress how seriously the men and women of the country view this method in t he light of the rapidly developing Imperialistic tendencies of the Italian Government. No one, I think, can fail to be impressed with the remarkable similarity of the language used by the Italian Government in the last few years to that which the late German Government used between 1900 and 1914. We are getting almost exactly the same sentences used that the late Kaiser used with regard to Imperial policy. "Oar future lies on the water" is a phrase which has been passed on by the ex-Kaiser to the pre-
sent dictator of Italy, and we have had similar statements as to the nature of the rapidly growing Italian Imperialism. I think the Foreign Secretary will understand, knowing the nature of the present Italian claims, knowing how they require an outlet for their population, why it is that people who are anxious as to the future peace of the world should be very gravely concerned that he has linked up a purely economic project, of ultimate benefit to the Abyssinians, to the Sudan and to Egypt, with the larger enterprises of another great Power in the world.
I should like to emphasise the point of view of the Abyssinians themselves. The State of Abyssinia represents the last chance the people of the world have to see what a native State in Africa can do apart from the direct tutelage of Europeans. In every other part of Africa the black race is more or less directly and deliberately subjected to the power of one white race or another.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Liberia?

Mr. SMITH: There are one or two that I will except, but in a general way the Foreign Secretary will agree that the resources of Abyssinia, both in minerals and from the point of view of agricultural possibilities, represent the one really significant social experiment that is left to the world for the possibility of seeing what can be done by a, native people to develop its own political like. I think not only the late monarch but the present regent have given evidences of a definitely progressive character. They have shown themselves to be deeply desirous of sharing in the life of Western civilisation. The mere fact that the present regent applied to become a member of the League of Nations, the mere fact that he has, out of his own purse, sent quite a number of his own subjects to acquire a West European education, the mere fact that he is working in co-operation with Christian missionaries from all parts of Europe and from the New World—all these things give evidence, whatever their backwardness and whatever their difficulties may be, of a people who are really anxious to make headway. I should like to read to the Foreign Secretary the opinion of an American visitor to Abyssinia with regard to the mental
qualities of the average children of Abyssinia. This quotation is taken from the report of the Phelps-Stokes Commission which investigated especially the educational problem of the Eastern States of Africa. This is the judgment which this gentleman formed:
I have never met an Abyssinian who was not convinced of the benefits to be derived from education. That this desire for education permeates all classes may be gathered from the remark made by an old Mohammedan Galla of Sayo, near the Sudan border, who said, 'Take my boys and teach them; if they learn Christianity, never mind, so that they learn. As for me, I am too old to change.' I think it is no exaggeration to say that if any sort of poor excuse for a school were put down in any obscure hamlet in Abyssinia, without recommendation of any kind, it would in less than no time attract a multitude of children, very ragged and dirty as to body, but almost without exception possessing minds avid for knowledge to a degree which is little short of remarkable. That this condition exists augurs well for the future. Here is not the dense black Paganism of the White Nile or the fanatic Mohammedism of the Blue Nile or Somaliland, but a people eager to learn.
I would impress upon the Foreign Secretary, in something of the spirit if not of the full practice as yet realised by the League of Nations, that we as a British people in the working out not simply of our conception of a mandate but, above all, our conception of a black people associated with the League, do want in our relations with Abyssinia to make them feel in advance that we are going out of our way to remove suspicions, and that we are even prepared to make sacrifices in order that Abyssinia may forget the past of her history, and in order that Abyssinia may learn that when she sends her coffee out she need not have French arms coming in: but that she may rest assured of the best dispositions of the three great Powers, and that she can use her very small resources, not for the purchasing of old-fashioned rifles, but for education and for developing a policy of co-operation with the British Government in economic enterprise.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Let us get back to the needs of Lancashire. I do not want to be accused of being unsympathetic to the aspirations of small peoples. During tile few years I have sat in this House whenever I have seen a small people attacked and the blame could be brought home to our Government at home—as in the case of
Ireland—I have always spoken out. The policy of my party has always been to stand for the benefit of small peoples, especially when some economic advantage accrues to them and benefit can be conferred to our own industries, as in the case of Lancashire. We all know that Lancashire is disturbed at the shortage in the world's cotton supply. From the purely British point of view, if we can by straightforward, honest methods obtain the right to construct this barrage on Lake Tsana, and the other great works lower down on the Blue Nile, it would have been a great advantage to the textile industry in Lancashire. Let us examine the Foreign Office policy from that point of view.
The ridiculous policy which has been pursued is enshrined in the White Paper which was published a few weeks ago, although it contains notes of an agreement dating to December last. We have ended by thoroughly arousing the suspicions of the Abyssinians. They are practically the last free people in Africa; the last independent native State. They are, incidentally, a Christian people, belonging to a. very ancient Christian Church, not the same as ours, and they feel that they have a right to some sympathy from another Christian people. Their suspicions have been thoroughly aroused, and they are people who are not averse to fighting. They are good soldiers, and it would cost many valuable lives to subdue them, as it did in the middle of the last century. The mountaineers especially in Abyssinia, under their native chiefs, have good cause to be proud of their fighting record.
It is regrettable that we have aroused the suspicions of such people. Fortunately, they have applied to the League of Nations. 1 think the application to the Secretary of the League of Nations by Abyssinia is the best thing that has happened for the last few years in the history of the League. It gives an opportunity now for the British Government to reverse this wholly mistaken policy of a secret Agreement with Italy. We have entered into this Agreement without any consultation with Abyssinia, because, forsooth, the Foreign Secretary says that the negotiations for the right to construct the great barrage were making slow progress. Because the negotiations were proceeding too slowly,
we thought that we might find a means of bringing pressure on Abyssinia by entering into this Agreement secretly with Italy. The right hon. Gentleman has explained what exclusive economic influence means. He has said that it means that no British subject shall be supported in rivalry with an Italian concession company. That is not how the Italians look at it. The Italian Government take note that
the British Government will recognise the exclusive character of Italian economic influence in the west of Abyssinia and in the whole of the territory crossed by the above-mentioned railway. The British Government will further support with the Ethopian Government all Italian requests for economic concessions in the above-mentioned zone.
How can the right hon. Gentleman say that that only means that we will not support a rival British concession hunter as against the Italians?
We have, thanks to the wisdom of the Abyssinian Government in appealing to the League of Nations, a chance of reversing this policy. I consider that this Agreement, after due notice to Italy, should be denounced. We shall never get any distance with our great scheme for a barrage on Lake Tsana in alliance with Italy. The Italian record is too bad. Her record is one of aggressive Imperialisim towards Abyssinia. The Italian record during the war was only a continuance of this same Imperial policy which has led Italy to one defeat, and if pursued, it will lead her to another defeat in the mountains of Western Abyssinia.
I do not believe that Abyssinia will ever, until Italian policy changes, grant concessions for the building of the railway from Eritrea to Italian Somaliland. I do not believe that railway will ever be built. The cost will be enormous. So long as we are bound by this agreement to Italy, as laid down in the White Paper, we shall never get the right to construct our motor road to the Lake, to construct our barrage or to build other works which could be constructed in the mighty gorges.
We should reverse this policy completely. I hope the Debate in the House to-night will have a good effect on the Abyssinian Government. We have been trying to obtain the property of somebody else without paying for it. That sort. of
thing was all right with regard to Morocco or Persia in the days before the War. The same language was used, "Preserve the sovereign independence"—and it is used again. It is always the signal for an encroachment, and if the British and Italian Governments pursue this policy I believe the conscience of the world, acting through the League of Nations, will checkmate us. As regards cotton for Lancashire there will not be an extra gallon of water in Lake Tsana as a result of this policy.
The right hon. Gentleman declared the innocence of the British Government. Yes, innocence, and that is what makes it worse. They have bungled the whole business. Western imperialism is very wicked, but utter stupidity of this sort is a crime. I am glad this Debate has taken place, and that the Abyssinian Government has appealed to the League of Nations. I hope the Foreign Office will now reverse their whole policy, start from the beginning again, satisfy the suspicions of the local inhabitants, who do not want to see their holy places submerged by this barrage scheme, and pay a decent royalty to the Abyssinian Government. I understood that all that stood in the way of the final agreement were two poor batteries of mountain artillery, and yet we were told that we were sending 100,000 Army rifles to Turkey. Above all, we should get clear of this entanglement with the Italian Government where Abyssinia, is concerned. Unless we do that there will be no extra cotton from the Sudan for Lancashire, and we shall have to adopt the other scheme and proceed to dredge the Sudd Valley and barrage the White Nile as an alternative to the Blue. This policy is utterly foolish, and I hope the right lion. Gentleman will have the courage to admit it and the moral courage to go in for a straightforward policy.

Orders of the Day — VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: My task at. This late hour of the evening and at the end of an exhaustive Session will not occupy more than a very short. time. The question I have to raise is a very old one—namely, the comparative position of the voluntary and provided schools. It is a question I have raised before, and on one occasion a Resolution I moved on this question was carried unanimously by the House of Commons. A Resolu-
tion which is carried without a single dissension may be regarded as a real historic and influential fact. I do not say it binds future Parliaments, but it shows the unanimity of feeling on what was once a very vexed question. As I view it, the present system, a double system, imposes a religious discrimination, which is contrary to the acknowledged spirit of the age, and in my particular case it involves also a class discrimination. It is well known that the men I represent in Liverpool, and the Irishmen I represent in England, Scotland and Wales, speaking generally, belong to the poorest section of the community. Surely it is class discrimination that they are called upon to contribute towards the creation of buildings which in the case of other and wealthier classes is defrayed at the expense of the ratepayers and the State. How were the schools of my own people in Liverpool created? I have described the conditions many times in this Rouse before and I have never described them without gaining sympathy of three-quarters, if not the whole House of Commons, except those who look at the school question from a narrow and sectarian point of view. The history of these Irishmen in Liverpool is well known.

Sir GERALD HOHILER: On a point of Order. Is not this a subject which requires legislation and is it not, therefore, out of order?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman is merely suggesting legislation, undoubtedly that would be out of order but if he is going to suggest any means of meeting the case without legislation, it would be in order.

Sir G. HOHLER: Upon that point of Order. Are these any means when the law is quite clear?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am waiting for the development of the right hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I must make a comment, not a hitter comment, on that interruption. Whenever I attempt in this House to obtain justice for the schools belonging to my countrymen, the hon. and learned Member has always been ready to embarrass me and trip me up instead of trying to help me. in a case which should be his as well as mine.
Everyone knows how these schools were first built. My countrymen came to England, and especially to Liverpool and Glasgow, after a famine in Ireland. They settled down in the slums, and it is somewhat of a humiliation to me as an Irishman that, coining to the slums nearly a century ago, they are still in the slums. But, still, out of their miserable wages they paid a contribution, a small sum, though to them large, by which they built first the Church of their faith, and, secondly, the school in which their faith could be taught. That is the origin of these schools. The Noble Lord the President of the Board of Education, I am sure, has sympathy with that spirit of sacrifice. He will say, as he is entitled to say, that the schools thus created are inefficient, from the point of view of construction, and I have to admit the truth of that indictment. But when I see the comparative poor buildings in which these schools are housed I cannot help making the reflection that it is a sad paradox that, in order to preserve the faith of their children, these countrymen of mine have had to risk the healths of their children and their families.
That is the position. Look at the other side of it. A. big cotton spinner or shipowner, who make a hundred thousand pounds a year, has well-constructed, modern buildings to house his children not because the needs of his children are as great or greater than those of the children of the poor but because he has the good luck to accept conscientiously a form of religious teaching which would not be accepted by members of my own creed. I call that religious discrimination, social discrimination. Up to that point I have the agreement of every one in the House. I do not say how the Government can deal with this question. I have to watch this malignant enemy of the schools for which I am pleading, who is watching me with the perverted ingenuity of a lawyer. I would say to the Noble Lord that in this House there is not a single party which has not a majority in favour of my view with regard to these schools.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER: I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman, in whose paternal capacity in this House I rejoice, but I am rather afraid that the trend of his argument is to suggest
building grants, which will, I fear, involve legislation.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I accept your paternal warning. I will only make an allusion to recent developments in the speeches of the Noble Lord. I will not suggest that this thing can he settled by general legislation. It would be absurd to ask any Government, whatever its composition or its majority, to enter on the morass of a reconstruction of the whole education. of children. All I would urge on the Noble Lord is that he will encourage these localities, including that which I represent, to come to terms among themselves and to be in a position one day to ask him—I do not think he will decline to do so—to give enabling powers which will enable them to settle this on a basis of mutual good will.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): It has been made a little difficult for us to discuss this question without trenching on ground which would be out of order. 1 do not know that raising the subject under such conditions is exactly conducive to a clear statement of policy. I hope that we shall always discuss this question with a due regard and remembrance of both sides of the question. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed to the self-sacrifice of the Roman Catholics in this country, who have providedthese schools.

Mr. O'CONNOR: And many of the Anglicans.

Lord E. PERCY: I quite agree with him. The Anglicans, Roman Catholics and other communities have made great sacrifices to provide, preserve and maintain voluntary schools. Moreover, let us never forget that they were the pioneers of education in this country. It is to them, and not to the State, that we owe the great pioneering work of our national education. At the same time, let us not forget another fact. The right hon. Gentleman talks about religious discrimination in the present system. I think that those who think with him on this subject will stand a very much better chance of making their views prevail in the country' if they recognise the other fact that at the present moment the ratepayers of this country are bearing a very
large extra cost on account of the provision of voluntary schools. It is because the ratepayers and taxpayers pay for the staff of these schools that these schools can be carried on. The maintenance of a large number of schools, in many cases small schools, means an expenditure on staff, greatly in excess of what would be necessary if one could organise all the schools of this country on a uniform basis, distribute the children among a number of similar schools, and distribute the staff. The maintenance of small schools means an extra expenditure on staff which is borne by the taxpayer and ratepayer and that means, and it ought to be recognised as, a regular contribution by the taxpayer and ratepayer to the principle that it is a good thing to encourage the provision of schools by voluntary religious bodies. Therefore I would ask my right hon. Friend—my right hon. father, if I might so call fiim—to bear that in mind before he talks too much about religious discrimination.
We all know we have a problem before us. The right hon. Gentleman has talked about the so-called black list to which I referred in Debate recently. It applies not only to voluntary schools, but to a large number of council schools as well. It does create a problem. The voluntary bodies, Roman Catholic, Anglican and others have already met it in many cases and are meeting it in more. They are providing money to put those schools right. In my Estimate speech I made an appeal. The black list is not a condemnation, but a challenge. I want from those responsible for these schools, whether they are local authorities or religious bodies, a definite plan of improvement. Where they think that the criticisms of the Board's inspectors are excessive and improvement not needed, let them say so. Opinions always differ. Let us have definite proposals and come to a definite plan. Let us not be frightened by the financial problem. I am perfectly certain it can be solved. The generosity and the self-sacrifice shown by the religious bodies in this country in the past, and the determination in the past of the ratepayers and of the taxpayers to provide for the children, taken together, ensure that we shall be able to solve this problem, but we will only solve it if we put all our cards on the table and show
what we are prepared to do, what money we can raise, how far we can go. If every voluntary body in this country will do that, and will get down to the practical details, I am sure that we can solve this problem. If these joint considerations between the local authority and the voluntary body lead to the conclusion that further power should he given to local authorities in the matter, I have already stated in public to local authorities that I am prepared to consider any such proposal. Further than that I cannot go.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I wish to thank the Noble Lord for his statement.

Orders of the Day — ORPINGTON HOSPITAL (ACCIDENT).

Mr. HAYES: I wish to raise a matter with the Minister of Pensions. It is a matter which I raised at Question Time on 17th June, concerning a man who was an inmate of the Ministry of Pensions Hospital at Orpington in connection with other disabilities caused by War service. The fact that the Minister of Pensions is not able to be present to-night is quite understood by me. I know that he would have preferred to have replied, and I regard his absence as not due in any way to lack of courtesy, but as unavoidable. The question I asked on 17th June related to an ex-service man named William Richardson. I inquired whether the Minister was aware that, while this man was a patient at the hospital, he was knocked down and run over .by a motor car within the grounds of the institution; and I further suggested that the treatment that the man received in the hospital, with the subsequent amputation of his leg, was not qualified or proper treatment. The reply of the Minister, which was regarded by me as unsatisfactory, was that the Ministry could not accept liability in the matter because the accident occurred at the hospital gates and was caused by a private motor lorry which had no connection whatever with the Ministry. That was stated in the first portion of the reply. A second argument as to the inability of the Ministry to accept responsibility was that the Minister could find no grounds which in any way supported the suggestion of neglect or improper treatment on the part of the hospital staff.
During the time that has passed since the question was raised, I have been endeavouring to obtain information that would support the allegations made in this case, and I am now in a position, not only to confirm what was said in the House, but to add to it, and I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary, in giving his reply, will be governed by the necessity of making fuller and even more proper inquiry into the matter than has hitherto been the case. Briefly the particulars are as follows: In July, 1921, this ex-service man was sent to Orpington Hospital for treatment for neuralgia and nerves. On Sunday afternoon, 27th November, the man was inside the hospital grounds talking to a military policeman. A motor-car proceeding outside the hospital grounds collided with the corner of the wall of the hospital grounds, and, through no intention of the driver, dashed into the grounds of the hospital. At any rate it was at least six or eight yards within the hospital grounds, according to our information, when it struck this patient, who was talking to the military policeman.

Sir G. HOHLER: On those facts it seems clear that there is a civil action against the lorry driver.

Mr. HAYES: I will not be deflected from the statement of the case, because the hon. and learned Gentleman who interrupts has no authority to pursue the inquiry after the case has been stated. I am quite prepared for the Parliamentary Secretary to give his reply. The man was severely injured and was taken into the hospital. He was not seen by the hospital surgeons. In fact he was in his own ward for two or three hours before he was seen by a doctor at all. He was then seen by a physician and not by a surgeon. The physician said that his leg was badly bruised. No further steps were taken. The man lay for 24 hours in the greatest of pain with no further attention. Another 24 hours passed before the leg was X-rayed, and it was only on Tuesday afternoon at four o'clock—the accident had occurred on the Sunday afternoon—that he was visited for the first time by a hospital surgeon. The limb was then examined, and the hospital surgeon said that it must be put into splints as soon as possible. Two
hours later, or 51 hours after the accident, the Sister who was in charge of the ward in which the man lay, with two orderlies, commenced to set the limb without any anaesthetic, local or general, and without any qualified assistance for the setting of the limb. It may be that up to that point there was no direct negligence or improper treatment, if it happens to Le the practice in any hospital for fractured limbs to be set by persons other than qualified surgeons, but I submit that, even if that bad been the practice, or if a limb could he set by a nurse assisted by orderlies, it is a highly improper proceeding in the treatment of a man who is known by X-ray examination to be suffering from a fracture. The treatment should have been by a surgeon.
The man's description of the pain which he went through is something of this kind: "The sister got two orderlies and three or four patients to hold me down, and then started pulling and twisting my limb unmercifully before applying the splints." That statement can be supported by substantial testimony. For the following 17 weeks the man lay in his bed, and when the splint was removed the limb was bent, twisted and out of all recognition. Five days after the splint was removed the man received orders to leave the hospital immediately. In spite of his protest he left the hospital in a taxicab, and returned home. He saw his panel doctor, who, after examining him, said that he could do nothing, in view of the terrible state in which the man was. The man then went to the Sussex County Hospital for treatment. There he was examined by a surgeon, a Dr. Turton, who would be fully cognisant of the importance of making a statement which might be in the man's favour from the point of view of subsequent action, because this particular doctor is also a doctor or surgeon of the Ministry of Pensions. Dr. Turton was aghast, as also was the surgeon specialist who collaborated with him. They discovered that little or nothing could be done except by amputation, and the limb was subsequently amputated.
It may be said that this case has been again and again inquired into by the present Minister of Pensions when he was in the Government preceding the Labour Government and that during the
time of the Labour Government a decision was given confirming the previous decision. That may be true. I am not raising this as a question of party politics and I hold no brief for the Minister of Pensions in the Labour Government or for the Minister of Pensions in the Conservative Government. One likes to deal with these questions, particularly where they affect the individual, without any regard to party politics, and certainly this man has no interest in party politics. It is in the interests of the man's own welfare that I bring the matter forward and without any regard as to whether or not it has been previously dealt with either by a Conservative or a Labour administration. I would only point out that the only occasion on which this case came under review during the term of the Labour administration was about four days after the Labour Minister of Pensions first appeared before the House in that capacity and then, in answer to a letter from the Secretary to the British Legion, the previous decision was simply reiterated. The matter never had the personal attention of the Minister of Pensions in the Labour Government, though it would have had, if the case had been brought before him in the same manner as it has been brought to the-notice of the present Minister. It was not brought to the notice of the Ministry in the time of the Labour Government, simply because the matter was not raised by any Member of this House and the facts were not then stated as they have been stated to the Conservative Ministry.
The position of the Ministry of Pensions is, that because the man was knocked down by a lorry, which was not the property of the Ministry, and because he was, as they contend, outside the hospital grounds, they can accept no responsibility. I submit that, in fact, the man was inside the grounds, but even if he were not, he would not have been at Orpington at all but for his condition, which was due directly to his War service. The responsibility for his presence in that hospital ought to be accepted by the Government. Had he not been there, he would have forfeited all the rights of benefit which he enjoyed under the Royal Warrant and, while he was there, he was, to all intents and purposes, a servant of the Ministry, and
he would have to obey all their regulations. If there is a technical difficulty in recognising his present disability, I feel that the Minister of Pensions and the Treasury could find a way out of that difficulty which would be honourable to the Department and to the man and would not set up a dangerous precedent —of which perhaps the Department is more afraid than of anything else.
I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to believe me when I say that this case is not raised by way of making any attack on the Minister or his Department or his administration. I personally have met nothing but courtesy when I have endeavoured to present this case to the Ministry. I am raising it as a matter of principle, and I ask the Government to recognise that this man's present situation is due entirely to his patriotism. I ask them to remember that his patriotism did not commence with the Conscription Act. It took him into the voluntary forces in 1905, and in 1914 he went to France with his territorial unit. He was wounded at Neuve Chapelle, returned to France in 1923, and was finally discharged in 1919. Now he is going about with one leg—a condition directly due to War service—and the Government ought not to allow him to be a burden upon his people or the local rates or benevolent employers. He has benevolent employers, but one wonders how long that will last. His employers are the Brighton and Hove Gas Company, and I mention their name because they have acted splendidly in his case. They have paid his fares to and from his work since he has been incapacitated, and, if he remains with them about 10 years, they will voluntarily have shouldered an expense of about £100 in that respect. I feel confident the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me an assurance that this case will be gone into again.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): I realise that the hon. Member is raising this matter entirely because of his interest in the man's case, and not from the party point of view, but there arc one or two statements in his narrative with which I cannot agree. Before dealing with those, I might point out that he said this case had not been before the previous Minister of Pensions because it had not been raised by a Mem-
ber of Parliament. That is rather underrating the people who did raise it. It was raised by the British Legion, who can, I think, he regarded as looking after the interests of ex-service men to the best of their ability. Coming to the hon Member's narrative of the facts, I must differ very strongly from him in several particulars. He said the man was standing at least six or eight yards inside the grounds when the accident occurred. The inquiry which was held does not substantiate that statement at all. He was standing at the gateway of the hospital and, in a thick fog, a motor lorry mounted the pavement and did undeniably run into him and knock him down.
Clearly, the Ministry were not responsible and attempts were made to trace the responsible party. The lorry itself was actually traced to a firm in the town, but they were able to prove that the lorry had been taken out without their consent or knowledge and they could not be held liable. The hon. Member then went on to make accusations which, f think, at heart, he can hardly believe himself. He says, in effect, that the treatment of the man in the hospital was extremely brutal and that he was not seen to for two or three hours after the accident. I have gone through the whole ease carefully since getting notice of the hon. Member's intention to raise it—I had never heard of it before—and as I read the evidence the man was seen to at once. The hon. Member also says that the man was not X-rayed until 48 hours after the accident, and that again is not the case.

Mr. HAYES: Twenty-four hours.

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I put it down as the hon. Member spoke.

Mr. HAYES: If the hon. and gallant Member is under a wrong impression, may I correct it? It was 24 hours before the leg was X-rayed, and he was not seen by the physician for an hour or two after the accident.

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: My information is that he was seen by the doctor at once, and was X-rayed the next day. It was not until then that it was ascertained that he had a broken leg. That is a very common occurrence. I am not a medical man, hut I have known in my experience plenty of cases where a frac-
ture was not revealed except as the result of an X-ray photograph, and that was the case on this occasion. As soon as it had been realised, as the result of the X-ray photograph, that the leg was broken, it was set. Here again I have the man's statement that it was set by a sister and that he was held down by two or three orderlies. I have looked through the whole case, because that is the man's own statement, which I have seen, and I can find no evidence of that of any kind. There is no evidence that it was not perfectly properly treated, and every possible care taken of him. May I point this out, that all the time the man was in hospital he made no complaint whatever of his treatment to the head of the hospital. He never complained that he had not been properly treated, and when he was discharged, five months later, the X-ray photograph showed that his leg had joined satisfactorily and was in a good condition.
He had the accident in November, 1921, and he was discharged in 1922. He had been taken into the hospital, very naturally, because it was the nearest place to which he could be taken. A Court of Inquiry was held as soon as possible to investigate the whole case, and it was clearly proved that the accident was not his fault, nor was it the fault of any official or servant of the Ministry. He was removed from hospital when his leg had reached a stage when he could be safely so removed, and that was in April, 1922. The next that was heard of him by the Ministry was not until November, 1923, a year and a-half later, and two years after the accident had taken place, and then he complained that his leg had had to be amputated, and he claimed that it was the responsibility of the Ministry. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions had investigated this case very carefully, and would have preferred, I know, to answer it himself, but in consequence of a previous engagement he was unable to do so, but when I heard of the case, I went into it most carefully for the first tile, and I must say that I cannot see on what grounds, either legal or moral, the hon. Member can claim that this man should he pensioned for this disability. He says that the man was an inmate of the hospital, and, therefore, as he had the accident, he ought to be treated as a
pensioner for it, but I want to point out to him that all that we are entitled to do, all that we can do, is to treat a man for his War injury, and this is not a war injury. This happened some years after the War and had nothing to do with the War. When the hon. Gentleman says it happened to the man inside the Institute, does he mean to say that locality makes any difference? If it had happened 300 yards or a mile away, does he contend that the Ministry would have been liable because the man was an inmate of the hospital?

Mr. HAYES: Whether inside or out.

Lieut.- Colonel STANLEY: I do not see that it has anything to do with it. If the hon. Member says he has got fresh evidence, it will be examined, but I am bound to say that, unless it is something completely new, which can be well corroborated, something quite different from what we have had at the present time, I honestly do not see how he can claim that this man should come under the pensions system, and he must remain simply a pensioner for his War disability and nothing else. If the hon. Member will send me any further evidence that he may have, I shall be only too glad to examine it and help hint in every way I can.

Question, " That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill according read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS [MONEY].

Considered in Committee [Progress, 16th July].

[Mr. JAMES Hoes in the Chair.] Question again proposed,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of contributions towards losses incurred by councils of counties and county boroughs in providing small holdings, and of councils of counties in providing cottage holdings, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1919.

10.0 P.M.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — POLICE PENSIONS BILL.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, 
 That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. HAYES: I do not propose to keep the House long in connection with this Bill, but there are one or two points upon which I should like some information from the Home Secretary. The agreement that was arrived at in regard to the first portion of the Bill was based upon the findings of the Committee of which Lord Lee of Fareham was the Chairman, and that Committee's Report made it clear, in reference to the arrangement that had been agreed to, and that is embodied in the first portion of the Bill, with regard to increased deductions from pay from members of the police forces, that the representatives of the police forces—I am quoting from page 5 of the Report—urged that
some improvements should be made in the existing scale of pensions, allowances, and gratuities for widows and children under the Police Pensions Act, 1921.
I am not entirely referring, of course, to the position of the old widows, a position which was raised fairly well and to which we had a reply on the Second Reading of the Bill, but I am referring to the position of certain police officers' widows, and particularly those who are provided for neither in the recent legislation dealing with widows and orphans, nor in any of the Acts referring to the police forces themselves.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson - Hicks): On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is permissible on the Third Reading of a Bill to deal with questions which are not contained in the Bill, and which the hon. Member may possibly think ought to have been contained in the Bill? I submit that questions relating to police widows and so forth are quite out of order on the Third Reading stage.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is an accepted rule, which has been enforced by Mr. Speaker, that on the Third Reading of a Bill we may only discuss the contents of the Bill, and that on Second Reading we may discuss anything congruous that is not in the Bill which hon. Members think should be in it.

Mr. HAYES: What I am endeavouring to discuss is a Clause in the Police Pensions Bill which increases the deductions from pay in respect to superannuation, and I submit that I am in order in referring to superannuation, in respect to which deductions are paid. My only reason for wishing to pursue this matter is to know whether, in agreeing to this Clause, the wishes expressed in the Lee Report are likely to be given effect to by the right hon. Gentleman as arising under this Bill, or in connection with any Regulations he may subsequently make. One of the discrepancies which the police desire to have removed is the position of the widow of the police officer with less than five years' service.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: On a point of Order. It seems to me quite useless that we should attempt to discuss the introduction of widows' pensions, or the increase of widows' pensions, on a Bill which deals entirely with a different subject. There is nothing in this Bill, and no money can be provided under it, to increase widows' pensions. The question was raised on Second Reading, and I had to say then that it was impossible to include widows' pensions in this Bill. I submit therefore, that the hon. Member is out of order in attempting to raise this question.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am not, clear that I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's argument. I understood him to argue, on Clause 1, that the deductions there mentioned would have an adverse effect on the position of wives and widows of police officers. But I now understand he puts forward a suggestion that there should be a revision of the scale of widows' pensions. That could not be done by administration, and there would have to be a Resolution of the House. If that be so, it will not be in order to discuss it on Third Reading.

Mr. HAYES: I am not referring to any widows' pensions or allowances that do not exist already, and in respect to which these deductions are earmarked. All I wanted was the courtesy of some information as to whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make such adjustments within the existing limits of legislation as would meet a situation under which some widows are deprived of benefits by existing laws. It is a very
simple question, and I thought the right hon. Gentleman might have been in a position to have said whether he proposes to deal with that point when he gets his Bill. If I remember rightly, several months ago, when I raised the matter by way of question and answer, he admitted that there were certain anomalies which were being looked into. With regard to the second portion of the Bill, may I refer the House to page 34 of the Mackenzie Committee Report, in respect to the inquiry as to the police officers who were dismissed from the service in 1919. I only want to refer him to paragraph 85. There is a reference there which states that, so far as the prison officers were concerned, the Committee thought that the Prison Commissioners might usefully exercise their discretion in giving an ex gratinpayment, and it is suggested that, by legislation or otherwise, this authority could be given to them. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to indicate whether he proposes to take any steps to give effect to that Report. With regard to that Clause in relation to the police strikers, I regret that he resisted the Amendffient in Committee to make the Bill compulsory, and I can only hope that the spirit of the gift which the right hon. Gentleman has given will find its way into the hearts of the watch committees who will be concerned by this Bill. It was only in that respect that I hoped the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to give us some indication of the steps he has taken to see that the committees carried out the Bill in the sense in which it was left to their discretion.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The two first points raised by the hon. Gentleman are quite obviously out of order. It is quite impossible for me to reply to them, because the Bill does not apply to widows' pensions, and it has nothing to do with prisons officers. With regard to the third point, the hope he expressed that local authorities will carry out the provisions of the Bill in a kindly spirit, I can only say that my experience of local authorities leads me to believe that they will do so. The hon. Member asks what steps I have taken to communicate with the local authorities, but it is impossible for me to communicate with them until the Bill has passed. When the Bill passes
through the House and it passed in another place, I shall then communicate with the local authorities.

Mr. HAYES: May I ask whether we can expect legislation on the matter of the prison officers subsequently?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the hon. Gentleman put a question down if he wants further information? I cannot, and I am not prepared to answer questions regarding prison officers on a Police Bill.
Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Grays and Tilbury Gas Company, which was presented on the 8th July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a. Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Burgess Hill and St. John's Common Gas Company, which was presenter on the 8th July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the South Suburban Gas Company, which was presented on the 12th July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Croydon Gas Company, which was presented on the 15th July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the North Middlesex Gas Company, which was presented on the 15th July and published, be approved, subject to the following modification:
Clause 20, line 9, after 'therm,' insert or part thereof.' —[Sir Burton. Chadwick.]

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1832 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Gainsborough, in the parts of Lindsey, in the county of Lincoln, which was presented on the 21st day of June, 1926, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Llantarnam, in the county of Monmouth, which was presented on the 1st clay of July. 1926, be approved.—(Sir B. Chadwick.]

Orders of the Day — MIDWIVES AND MATERNITY HOMES BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question proposed [14th July] on consideration of Lords Amendments.

Lords Amendment:

In page 6, line 8, at the end, insert

NEW CLAUSE A.—(Power to exempt certain institutions from Part II.)

(1) A local supervising authority may grant exemption from the operation of this Part of this Act in respect of—

(a) any hospital or other premises for the conduct of which a duly qualified medical practitioner resident therein is responsible; or
(b) any hospital or institution not carried on for profit and not used mainly as a maternity home.

(2) A local supervising authority may at any time withdraw an exemption granted by it under this Section.

(3) Any person who is aggrieved by the refusal of local supervising authority to grant exemption under this Section in respect of any hospital, premises or institution, or by the withdrawal of any such exemption previously granted by the authority, may appeal against the refusal or withdrawal to the Minister of Health, and the Minister, after considering the matter, shall give such directions therein as he thinks proper, and the authority shall comply with any directions so given.

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Lieut.- Colonel Fremantle.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HOME COUNTIES (MUSIC AND DANCING) LICENSING BILL.

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HEATHER BURNING (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. R. W. Smith.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Prohibition of muirburn of certain times.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 1, line 9, leave out from "that" to the end of the Clause, and insert
(a) It shall be lawful for the proprietor of any lands, or for the tenant with the written authority of the proprietor or of his factor or commissioner, to make muirburn or burn the heath thereon at any time during the period from the sixteenth day to the thirtieth day of April, both days inclusive; and
(b) Where the proprietor of any lands or his factor or commissioner has refused or has failed within seven days after written application for such authority has been made to him by the tenant of such lands, being a tenant who is entitled under the provisions of his lease or by virtue of an Order made in pursuance of the immediately succeeding Section of this Act to make muirburn or burn the heath on such lands, the tenant may, after giving to the proprietor or his factor or commissioner written notice of his intention to do so, make application to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland (hereafter in this Act referred to as the Board) and the Board may on such application, if they are satisfied that it is expedient to do so, by Order authorise the tenant to make muirburn or burn the heath on such lands during the whole or part of the period last mentioned in the year to which the Order relates, in accordance with the conditions contained in the lease or in the Order under the immediately succeeding Section as the case may be. A copy of such Order shall be sent by the Board to the proprietor or his factor or commissioner.
(2) In the ease of a deer forest more than fifteen hundred feet above sea level, the foregoing Sub-section shall have effect as if the fifteenth day of May were substituted for the thirtieth day of April.

Lords Amendment read a Second time.

Mr. SMITH: I beg to move, in paragraph (b) of the Lords Amendment, to leave out the words
within seven days after written application for such authority,
and to insert instead thereof the words
to give such written authority within seven days after written application therefor.
The object of the Lords Amendment and of the Amendment which I am moving is merely to make more clear the purpose of the Bill. It was found, after the Bill had been through Committee, that the wording was not quite what was intended, and, therefore, the alteration was made in the Lords. My Amendment is merely a drafting matter

Mr. JOHNSTON: May we not have a statement from the promoters of the Bill telling us in what respect the Amendment made in the Lords makes the Bill more clear? It is hardly good enough simply to say that this is merely a drafting Amendment or that it makes the Bill more clear. In what respect was the Bill not clear when it left the Standing Committee and how far has it been made more clear in another place? Unless we can get an explanation we propose to debate it.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): With regard to the further Amendment of my hon. Friend, it merely makes a verbal alteration. It makes the Lords Amendment which was passed more grammatical because it was found that the words "refused or has failed" were standing in the air. We did not say what the proprietor was refusing or failing to do. In regard to the Lords Amendment the Clause was redrafted in order to make clear, first of all, that, in default of the landlord's consent to burn during this further extended period, permission should be granted only to a tenant who either is entitled to burn under his lease or a tenant who has got an order releasing him from restrictions of his lease under Clause 2 of the Bill. Secondly, it is made clear that the tenant, before making his application to the Board for an order, must give the landlord notice of his intention to do so. Thirdly, it is made clear that. the conditions which govern .the method of burning heather during the normal statutory period should equally apply during this extended period. That was not clear from the original wording, but obviously that was what was intended. Lastly, the Board are required when
they make an order to send a copy to the landlord as well as to the tenant.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Perhaps it might be convenient if I were to say for the information of the House that these Amendments have been carefully scrutinised by the National Farmers Union of Scotland, which is satisfied with them as they stand, with the verbal Amendment which has been suggested by the promoter.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Are we to understand that the only respects in which a concession has been made to the landlords is, first of all, that a notice must be sent by the tenant to the landlord before the application is withdrawn, and that after it has been made it shall be sent to the landlord as well as the tenant? Do we understand that it is only in these two respects that any concessions have been made?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I do not think I should call these Amendments concessions, because they are only intended to make clear the machinery of the Bill. It was always intended that the landlord should have a chance of appearing before the Court, and making any representations he wanted to make, and obviously he can only do that if he has notice that a tenant is making an application.
Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Lords Amendments down to page 2, line 39, agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Construction, short title and extent.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 10, at the end, insert
and in the case of a common grazing includes the committee appointed under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919, and the expression lease ' in relation to such common grazing includes Regulations made or approved by the Land Court under the said Acts.

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Mr. JOHNSTON: May we have an explanation as to what this Amendment means?

The LORD ADVOCATE: This Amendment is intended to make it perfectly clear that the power to make orders may apply to common grazings as well as to moorland. The Board of Agriculture is given power to regulate the burning on common grazings as well as on moorland, and the question of burning and the extension of the principle may be as valuable on common grazings as upon ordinary moors, and this can only be done under this Bill. All we do by this Amendment is to make it clear that we intend to extend the machinery to the case of common grazings as well as to moorland.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Are we to understand that the powers presently held by the Land Court are no longer to be held by the Land Court, but are being transferred to the Board of Agriculture?

The LORD ADVOCATE: No, Sir, certainly not. The Land Court has certain powers of control over common grazings under the Small Landholders Act. That is quite apart from the question of what is legitimate in the matter of muirburn. We are dealing with the matter of muirburn here, and we are allowing an extension of the period of muirburn and a relaxation of the conditions, under the ultimate control of the Board of Agriculture. It would, as I think the House will agree, be a mistake if we were not to include in the benefits of this Measure common grazings and, if we did not include it ,here, the Land Court would have no power to deal with it.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — RURAL HOUSING BILL.

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That this House do now adjourn."— [Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Captain BENN: May I ask whether, on the Bill that we are to discuss to-morrow—the Rural Housing Bill—it is the intention of the Minister of Health to make a statement about the subsidy for urban houses after the 1st October?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): No., Sir, I do not think that it would be possible to make such a statement on the Bill to be discussed to-morrow, which deals exclusively with rural housing. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would put down a question.

Captain BENN: if I may be allowed to press the matter, it was understood that the Minister of Health would make a statement on this important question of the continuation of the housing subsidy before the House rose for the summer holidays, and I would urge that it should be made before the House rises.

Sir K. WOOD: I doubt if it will be possible to make such a statement before the House adjourns. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, it has been repeatedly stated in this House that the matter of the subsidy has to come under review in October, and my right hon. Friend desires, if possible, to make some statement with regard to the . future. Whether that will be possible or not I
should not care to say to-night, but I think, that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would put a question down for Wednesday, that, perhaps, would be the best course.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is it not the case that the Minister of Health has told a deputation of Members of this House that he hopes to make some announcement before the House rises? Obviously, it would be out of order on the Bill that is to come before the House to-morrow.

Sir K. WOOD: I have said that my right hon. Friend would desire, if possible, to do so, but I pointed out to my hon. Friend the other day the difficulty in which we are placed by the terms of the Statute. Obviously, it is a matter upon which a question addressed to us could be put down for Wednesday, or, no doubt as a matter of urgency, a question could be handed in to-morrow.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes before Eleven o'clock.